Support NeoGAF

[ab.aeterno]

Answer the other question please. Should the baker be forced by the law to make that cake with a tomato on it, or should he be allowed to refuse the request of that tomato cake?

No, but as I already see where this is going, the argument that "well, then why should they be forced by law to make that cake with that organization logo on it?" is predicated on ignoring the context of each image, as I already pointed out, and treating them as equivalent when in practicality they are not, as opposition to a tomato is not rooted in religious belief.

So now that I've answered your question, please answer mine: is there a possibility to abuse the distinction between refusing an individual cake and refusing a customer to refuse all requests for a protected class of customers to discourage them from buying from you such that you operate under de facto discriminatory practices?

Because let me be clear, I have not been advocating for forcing everyone to create everything regardless but pointing it potential problems with this distinction when we also wish to prevent discrimination against protected class customers. Yet by virtue of not arguing against one, I've been lumped in the other, which makes me question whether my intent was either poorly communicate or simply ignored.

 

[captive]

Well thankfully for society, it has been well established that religious views do not trump the rights of other people.

Thankfully, there's probably other bakers that they could take a request like this to. Why pick a company that is known to be Christian, other than to start a fight?

I just don't understand why would people go to a business that would most likely deny their request. It's almost as if they are just looking to make a story out of it.

That's exactly what it sounds like they were doing.

 

[Two Words]

I don't understand what you're saying here? The UK has passed law to say that you are unable to discriminate against someone based on their sexuality, despite any religious views that may be held by that person.

Discriminating a design cake isn't the same as discriminating a person. You're extending the rights of people to the rights of cakes, essentially. The law would have to specifically have regulations for discriminating against particular design requests. Does it?

 

[Opiate]

So what do you guys think of the hypothetical situation described by me?

It is a tough situation. I'd point out that this cake in question apparently had an explicit pro-gay-marriage message on it. If a cake not only had a black bride / white groom but also had a sign over it saying "black and white people in love forever," then it surely passes through 'simple wedding cake" territory in to "explicit political statement' territory.

 

[Chuckie]

They are discriminating cakes, not people.

Really? As an interracial couple it is impossible to get a cake with dolls on it that represent them, while as a non-interracial couple it is possible.

It is a tough situation. I'd point out that this cake in question apparently had an explicit pro-gay-marriage message on it. If a cake not only had a black bride / white groom but also had a sign over it saying "black and white people in love forever," then it surely passes through 'simple wedding cake" territory in to "explicit political statement' territory.

True, that's why I intentionally made the discussion a bit harder by mentioning a situation where the cakes are exactly the same and only the little avatars/dolls (whatever they are called) are black/white.

 

[kharma45]

I don't understand what you're saying here? The UK has passed law to say that you are unable to discriminate against someone based on their sexuality, despite any religious views that may be held by that person.

And they're not. They're against the political motive of the cake which is fair enough. As it has been noted in the thread, this bakery was chosen due to the fact that it's a well known Christian bakery and this was going to cause a story for group who want the cake made.

 

[UncleSporky]

A person can refuse to make something that is offensive to the general man on the street. Offensive. Children being killed is offensive. Making a cake for a gay group fighting for equal rights, not quite the same thing. on any level.

You realize that a lot of things have been offensive to the "general man on the street" over the years, including homosexuality and iter-racial marriage?

Are we going to define the law via poll or something? Run a big online poll every week to determine what is offensive and therefore not required to be put on cakes?

 

[damisa]

The firm's 24-year-old general manager, Daniel McArthur, said marriage in Northern Ireland "still is defined as being a union between one man and one woman" and said his company was taking "a stand".

"The directors and myself looked at it and considered it and thought that this order was at odds with our beliefs.

"It certainly was at odds with what the Bible teaches, and on the following Monday we rang the customer to let him know that we couldn't take his order."

"I would like the outcome of this to be that, any Christians running a business could be allowed to follow their Christian beliefs and principles in the day-to-day running of their business and that they are allowed to make decisions based on that."

1. You dont have a right to refuse service based on any of your beliefs. Offensivity is judged 'by the man on the street' principle. Not 'my god gets angry' principle. You do have the grounds to object to something genuinely offensive. This isnt it. And it isnt judged on a person by person basis.

2. They are refusing service by refusing to make the cake, their service is in cake making, they are refusing to make the cake on religous grounds, theyre discriminating against a gay cake, the sexuality of the person who was trying to make it doesnt even really matter. Theyre discriminating against a class or group of people.

3. Gay marriage is not legal in N Ireland, but its also not offensive in any legal definition. There was nothing offensive in the design of the cake.

4. Running a business according to Christian beliefs? Christ took a vow of poverty and gave food out for free.

5. Why should their religous belief be involved in this at all? Seriously? Why should their religous freedom give them the freedom to discriminate? Why should that freedom be above those of their customers?

Do you also think that say the Catholic Church should be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies?

 

[Two Words]

Really? As an interracial couple it is impossible to get a cake with dolls on it that represent them, while as a non-interracial couple it is possible.

Can't you just buy a black doll and white doll and put it on there yourself?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

None of that can be effectively put into law. How do you determine "who a person is on a fundamental level"? How do you argue that in court? How does any of that get boiled down to an objective level? If you want to say that is wrong, fine. It's a different thing entirely when you are trying to put it into law.

Jesus, you just said "Change it to race and see how far it goes." I simply changed it to something even worse than race. I intentionally chose something worse because I knew you would agree with the baker to refuse it. Why? Because I need you to see why a baker should have some control over saying no to a particular design.

So you skipped changing it to race and presented a situation that has nothing to do with race or any type of practical situation of historical discrimination. You instead presented me with a situation that 99% of the world would find abhorrent based on the fact that kids are being blown to bits on a fucking cake.

I asked you to aim for the moon, yet you're choosing to fly to fucking Andromeda.

Now when you get down to determining what is okay and what isn't okay to deny, you'll realize there is no effective way to build a law around that.

You know there are laws to determine whats okay and not okay to deny, correct?

 

[markot]

Yes, there are people BEHIND THE BUSINESS. They aren't machines that are slaves to their clients. They can refuse to make something they don't want to make, for their own reasons. They don't owe you a cake and you don't owe them money intrinsically. If they want to go their whole life never making a particular cake, they have every right to just that.

No they dont. They cant discriminate against someone just because they have their moronic stone age beliefs to cling to. Not an inter racial cake, not a gay cake, not a cake promoting feminism.

Imagine the shangri la we would live in were that true? I cant put tyres on that car, it has a gay pride sticker on it! I cant rent this house to you, your inter racially married, not discriminating against yout two as individuals just the marriage you took part in! I cant make this house for you, I heard you might get gay married in it! Oh no, I dont make cards for people who work at planned parenthood! Hey! I bread to people who drive chevvies, bring another car then we talk!

All stupid examples? just as this case. Dont open a shop open to the public if you cant perform your duties.

 

[CyclopsRock]

A person can refuse to make something that is offensive to the general man on the street. Offensive. Children being killed is offensive. Making a cake for a gay group fighting for equal rights, not quite the same thing. on any level.

Why does the offence of the average man on the street matter to me, as a baker? Why isn't it my own offence that defines what my labour goes towards?

This is a red herring anyway - there's no reason to think it's about offence. This is a pressure group that has explicit aims that apparently the bakery objects to. Switch it to the Socialist Workers Party or the Irish Democrats for an Ethnically Homogeneous Ireland and you find a similar problem of your labour being obligated by law to help promote a group you disagree with.

 

[Chuckie]

Can't you just buy a black doll and white doll and put it on there yourself?

By that you mean: You might be right, but I am not going to admit that.

 

[Red Arremer]

So now that I've answered your question, please answer mine: is there a possibility to abuse the distinction between refusing an individual cake and refusing a customer to refuse all requests for a protected class of customers to discourage them from buying from you such that you operate under de facto discriminatory practices?

Yes, you can. The baker can offer a different motif. The baker can offer making the cake without the items that he does not want to make. The baker can ask if they would like to maybe think of something else the customer would want that the baker wants to do.

If the baker completely refuses selling cakes to that customer, then it's discriminatory. If they refuse a motif but offer other options, then they are not.

 

[markot]

You realize that a lot of things have been offensive to the "general man on the street" over the years, including homosexuality and iter-racial marriage?

Are we going to define the law via poll or something? Run a big online poll every week to determine what is offensive and therefore not required to be put on cakes?

It changes over time, its the basis law has used for a long time. Juries use it, judges use it.

Do you also think that say the Catholic Church should be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies?

No, theyre a religous organisation, a private club.

 

[ab.aeterno]

Alright, pack it up folks. No comparisons can ever be made again, because all of them fail to take into account the subtle nuances etc. etc.

Compare to something negative and you're wrong because you've compared a good thing with a negative thing or are a slippery slope asshole. Compare to something mundane and you're wrong because there's nothing controversial about the mundane thing. You can't successfully compare anything, so don't even try.

Jesus Christ. Pointing out that an example ignoring context pertinent to a discussion about discrimination, as the example does not illustrate any potential discriminatory intent, is now tantamount to shutting down all discussion? Why are you using me to address other people's arguments about comparisons to negative things? Don't fucking use me to argue against other people.

 

[Two Words]

By that you mean: You might be right, but I am not going to admit that.

No. The claim was that an interracial couple will never be able to get the dolls they want. I'm saying that isn't true.

 

[Yrael]

Can't you just buy a black doll and white doll and put it on there yourself?

It strikes me that this logic could be extended to just about any service being denied minorities. "Can't you just do it yourself?"

 

[Opiate]

No they dont. They cant discriminate against someone just because they have their moronic stone age beliefs to cling to. Not an inter racial cake, not a gay cake, not a cake promoting feminism.

Imagine the shangri la we would live in were that true? I cant put tyres on that car, it has a gay pride sticker on it! I cant rent this house to you, your inter racially married, not discriminating against yout two as individuals just the marriage you took part in! I cant make this house for you, I heard you might get gay married in it! Oh no, I dont make cards for people who work at planned parenthood! Hey! I bread to people who drive chevvies, bring another car then we talk!

All stupid examples? just as this case. Dont open a shop open to the public if you cant perform your duties.

What if I wanted a cake that said "9/11 was an inside job?" If I'm a cake maker, should I be unable to refuse that?

Again, a critical component of the issue is that the cake apparently had explicit pro-gay-marriage text above it. I completely agree that a cake which simply had two men (or two women) on top as the married couple should be covered under anti-discrimination laws. But as soon as an explicit political message is attached, then there is a whole different reason to deny service for that specific cake, and one that I actually agree with.

 

[UncleSporky]

No they dont. They cant discriminate against someone just because they have their moronic stone age beliefs to cling to. Not an inter racial cake, not a gay cake, not a cake promoting feminism.

Imagine the shangri la we would live in were that true? I cant put tyres on that car, it has a gay pride sticker on it! I cant rent this house to you, your inter racially married, not discriminating against yout two as individuals just the marriage you took part in! I cant make this house for you, I heard you might get gay married in it! Oh no, I dont make cards for people who work at planned parenthood! Hey! I bread to people who drive chevvies, bring another car then we talk!

All stupid examples? just as this case. Dont open a shop open to the public if you cant perform your duties.

The law doesn't need to step in for any of these cases because if the "man on the street" doesn't find these things offensive, social justice will take care of those businesses in due time.

If social justice does not take care of them, then perhaps the thing really is so offensive that it needs no defense. See earlier examples of Nazi cakes. A bake shop isn't going to get scuttled on Twitter because they refuse to make one of those.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It changes over time, its the basis law has used for a long time. Juries use it, judges use it.

Do you also think that say the Catholic Church should be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies?

No, theyre a religous organisation, a private club.

Not in the UK - we have an established church that performs functions of the state.

 

[Two Words]

No they dont. They cant discriminate against someone just because they have their moronic stone age beliefs to cling to. Not an inter racial cake, not a gay cake, not a cake promoting feminism.

Imagine the shangri la we would live in were that true? I cant put tyres on that car, it has a gay pride sticker on it! I cant rent this house to you, your inter racially married, not discriminating against yout two as individuals just the marriage you took part in! I cant make this house for you, I heard you might get gay married in it! Oh no, I dont make cards for people who work at planned parenthood! Hey! I bread to people who drive chevvies, bring another car then we talk!

All stupid examples? just as this case. Dont open a shop open to the public if you cant perform your duties.

They are discriminating a cake design, not people. They are saying "This cake design is not welcome to be made here.", not "These kind of people are not welcome here". They are completely different under the law. Can you show that the law treats design requests with the same discrimination rights as people?

 

[markot]

Why does the offence of the average man on the street matter to me, as a baker? Why isn't it my own offence that defines what my labour goes towards?

This is a red herring anyway - there's no reason to think it's about offence. This is a pressure group that has explicit aims that apparently the bakery objects to. Switch it to the Socialist Workers Party or the Irish Democrats for an Ethnically Homogeneous Ireland and you find a similar problem of your labour being obligated by law to help promote a group you disagree with.

Theyre not PROMOTING a group at all. Its ridiculous to phrase it that way. If you make bread for catholics to turn into jesus, are you promoting catholicism?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Theyre not PROMOTING a group at all. Its ridiculous to phrase it that way. If you make bread for catholics to turn into jesus, are you promoting catholicism?

No. But if the bread has "Catholics Rule, OK!" on it you are, which is a more accurate comparison. Eitherway, you're aiding a group whose aims you disagree with go about their business of achieving those aims. Whether making a cake has a significant benefit for them isn't really a relevant matter - clearly this group think it's worth buying a cake that advertises the group.

 

[hachi]

Wow. Mental gymnastics again...

Are the people being served? No.

Why are they not being served? Gay cake.

Problem? The cake 'goes against their beliefs'.

Nonsense. It's a cake with an explicit message (not merely a wink, which would have been the case with Bert and Ernie alone) that runs directly contrary to their beliefs. I'm sure they serve gay people nearly every day in other cake requests. I'd go further: even asking them to make this particular cake, if the customers in question knew about the bakery's beliefs (and who knows, perhaps they didn't), is much more confrontational and inconsiderate than the bakery's refusal. You don't walk into a shop that offers custom creative content and ask them for something directly contrary to their religion and beliefs.

And your reduction of their position is abhorrent:

Their beliefs? Gay people are icky.

On what basis do you claim that? Oh, perhaps your reason is: "religious people are icky."

And to put the cherry on top of this stupid pie of why is this even an issue in 2014, what would JESUS do? How many people did her turn away? And again, you cant run any business based on x religous values, nor should that be an excuse for anything, theyre not a non profit religous organisation or charity..

Jesus invited those he considered sinners to his table and into his fellowship, but he didn't exactly bake a cake proclaiming the validity of their lifestyles. On the contrary, sexual morality was inseparable from his teachings; in fact he doubled down on the problem of non-marital lust when the prior Jewish law had focused only on actual acts of adultery. You can find this both explicitly in his sayings in every text, as well as in the churches founded by his immediate apostles, which were crucially concerned with promoting sexual morality amongst the members and which retained an image of marriage as a union of the central division of humanity, man and woman, which is to symbolize the union of God and the church as a corporate body of worship. In short, there's no avoiding the connection between sexual morality and Christianity, so don't attempt to reinvent a fantasized version of Jesus that you can then turn against members of this religion as a weapon.

 

[Chuckie]

No. The claim was that an interracial couple will never be able to get the dolls they want. I'm saying that isn't true.

At that bakery! Which is what we are discussing. An interracial couple is denied the service a non interracial couple does get: A wedding cake with avatars of themselves.

Is that discrimination? I think so. Your argument to 'just buy' another avatar and put it on themselves is not a real good one.

 

[Two Words]

Somebody asked a good example earlier. If the Christian bakery refused to bake a "God isn't real" cake, should they be allowed to refused to make that cake?

At that bakery! Which is what we are discussing. An interracial couple is denied the service a non interracial couple does get: A wedding cake with avatars of themselves.

Is that discrimination? I think so. Your argument to 'just buy' another avatar and put it on themselves is not a real good one.

It's discriminating cakes, not people. It would only be discriminating people if they would make that cake for a white person, but not a black person.

 

[ab.aeterno]

Yes, you can. The baker can offer a different motif. The baker can offer making the cake without the items that he does not want to make. The baker can ask if they would like to maybe think of something else the customer would want that the baker wants to do.

If the baker completely refuses selling cakes to that customer, then it's discriminatory. If they refuse a motif but offer other options, then they are not.

Sure, that all sounds reasonable. But that's not what my example was. If a company refuses every submitted cake design individually from a customer, not offering to do it in any other way, is that de facto discrimination and would it be allowed by the distinction?

Spoiler

I hope my tone is non-confrontational, as with you, I'm trying to have an earnest discussion.

 

[Opiate]

They are discriminating a cake design, not people. They are saying "This cake design is not welcome to be made here.", not "These kind of people are not welcome here". They are completely different under the law. Can you show that the law treats design requests with the same discrimination rights as people?

But consider if a cake simply had a white groom / black bride on top, with no other messaging.

If a cake maker can refuse that, then for all practical purposes, he is legally discriminating against them. Virtually every wedding cake has a statue of the couple on top; if you refuse that specific service, you are effectively refusing to serve them at all.

But the case in this thread is different; it wasn't just a male/male couple on the top of the cake, it included an explicit political message. That is not a standard for cake design and that does strike me as reasonably objectionable.

 

[CrocMother]

It depends. If they don't want to serve gays, that is a problem.

If they just don't want to make a "gay bert and ernie cake" (whatever that is) than I say it's their choice. Isn't easier to just find another bakery than sue?

 

[Kinyou]

What if I wanted a cake that said "9/11 was an inside job?" If I'm a cake maker, should I be unable to refuse that?

Again, a critical component of the issue is that the cake apparently had explicit pro-gay-marriage text above it. I completely agree that a cake which simply had two men (or two women) on top as the married couple should be covered under anti-discrimination laws. But as soon as an explicit political message is attached, then there is a whole different reason to deny service for that specific cake, and one that I actually agree with.

Similarly would probably everyone agree that a gay baker should be able refuse to make a cake that has anti-gay marriage text on it.

 

[UncleSporky]

What if a gay asian couple asked for a cake with a white female and black male getting married on top, and they refused to make the cake based on its design?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Somebody asked a good example earlier. If the Christian bakery refused to bake a "God isn't real" cake, should they be allowed to refused to make that cake?

No, because if you're a public institution you can't fucking discriminate people based on religious view points.

If you can't handle the vast diversity of the general public don't fucking open shops to them.

 

[Chuckie]

It's discriminating cakes, not people. It would only be discriminating people if they would make that cake for a white person, but not a black person.

Why is it not discriminating people? It is discriminating the interracial couple.

 

[markot]

Again, the 9/11 cake would be offensive to most people. Theyre not asking the people to promote a political message, just print one. Could a print shop refuse to service a union for making flyers about raising the minimum wage? Why should they be able to? Its their business to put works on paper, or words on cake. No one would have known about this, at all, or that they made the cake to begin with, if they had just made it. Theyre the ones trying to turn this into a 'oh us christians being fed to the lions agains!' crap.

Recently in the USA a cake company was forced to make cakes depicting gay marriage, it was found to be discrimination to refuse service on those grounds. (ie refusing to create a cake depicting same sex marriage)

No church can be made to do same sex marriages because those... arent companies? and generally have exemptions in discrimination law because theyre backwards and people like to pretend thats ok.

This is a private business, offering a public service. Its apples and oranges that hate gays.

 

[UncleSporky]

No, because if you're a public institution you can't fucking discriminate people based on religious view points.

If you can't handle the vast diversity of the general public don't fucking open shops to them.

Once again, we all learn that a design is a person.

 

[Two Words]

No, because if you're a public institution you can't fucking discriminate people based on religious view points.

If you can't handle the vast diversity of the general public don't fucking open shops to them.

Eh, I guess we have vastly different ideas of what the rights of a business owner are then. Legally speaking, in America, I'm sure the baker could refuse to make that cake, though.

At that bakery! Which is what we are discussing. An interracial couple is denied the service a non interracial couple does get: A wedding cake with avatars of themselves.

Is that discrimination? I think so. Your argument to 'just buy' another avatar and put it on themselves is not a real good one.

Designs aren't people. Designs of people are not people.

 

[Mastadon]

Eh, I guess we have vastly different ideas of what the rights of a business owner are then. Legally speaking, in America, I'm sure the baker could refuse to make that cake, though.

Was there not a case in Colorado recently where the judge said that a bakery wasn't able to decline to make a same-sex marriage cake?

And they're not. They're against the political motive of the cake which is fair enough. As it has been noted in the thread, this bakery was chosen due to the fact that it's a well known Christian bakery and this was going to cause a story for group who want the cake made.

I wasn't referring to this situation specifically, just querying his assertion that it was impossible to legislate around equality.

 

[mugurumakensei]

I wonder if the bakery would have had to pay royalties if the cake would have been made with the Queerspace logo.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Again, the 9/11 cake would be offensive to most people. Theyre not asking the people to promote a political message, just print one. Could a print shop refuse to service a union for making flyers about raising the minimum wage? Why should they be able to? Its their business to put works on paper, or words on cake. No one would have known about this, at all, or that they made the cake to begin with, if they had just made it. Theyre the ones trying to turn this into a 'oh us christians being fed to the lions agains!' crap.

And by printing it, they are promoting the message. Why do you think they're getting printed? They're facilitating that promotion. It's not about word getting out about Company A supporting Message X. It's about the fact that, by providing the service you do, you are actively promoting Message X, because that's why you've been asked (and offered money) to do it.

Again, I was briefly a freelance, self employed animator. I did projects for clients. If, say, the Republicans asked me to make an anti-abortion advert, should I be obligated to do it? They're not asking me to promote it, just make a film... promoting it.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Was there not a case in Colorado recently where the judge forced a company to make a same-sex marriage cake?

Yes

Discrimination under the guise of Religious Freedom when it comes to America is the most retarded thing to have come into existence, and I'm very happy that this will be a staple case to point to when the need arises again.

 

[Chuckie]

Designs aren't people. Designs of people are not people.

No but he is denying the couple a service. The couple are people. It is tradition to have a representation of the bride and groom on the cake. They, the couple, cannot get that BECAUSE they are an interracial couple. That is discrimination.

 

[markot]

Nonsense. It's a cake with an explicit message (not merely a wink, which would have been the case with Bert and Ernie alone) that runs directly contrary to their beliefs. I'm sure they serve gay people nearly every day in other cake requests. I'd go further: even asking them to make this particular cake, if the customers in question knew about the bakery's beliefs (and who knows, perhaps they didn't), is much more confrontational and inconsiderate than the bakery's refusal. You don't walk into a shop that offers custom creative content and ask them for something directly contrary to their religion and beliefs.

And your reduction of their position is abhorrent:



On what basis do you claim that? Oh, perhaps your reason is: "religious people are icky."



Jesus invited those he considered sinners to his table and into his fellowship, but he didn't exactly bake a cake proclaiming the validity of their lifestyles. On the contrary, sexual morality was inseparable from his teachings; in fact he doubled down on the problem of non-marital lust when the prior Jewish law had focused only on actual acts of adultery. You can find this both explicitly in his sayings in every text, as well as in the churches founded by his immediate apostles, which were crucially concerned with promoting sexual morality amongst the members and which retained an image of marriage as a union of the central division of humanity, man and woman, which is to symbolize the union of God and the church as a corporate body of worship. In short, there's no avoiding the connection between sexual morality and Christianity, so don't attempt to reinvent a fantasized version of Jesus that you can then turn against members of this religion as a weapon.

Its a cake with a message on it? So? how does that turn it into a broken imp from the depths of hell designed to tempt wayward souls? Theyre being asked to transcribe something. Could a florist refuse to put a male name on a car if a male caller is calling it in and it says "For the wedding we couldnt have"? Could a print shop refuse to print something pro gay marriage? When you offer a service to the public, you cant be a dick about it. Theres no *for religous feelings, for personal beliefs, and for whatever thought spasm enters their cranium that night.

And no, im not going to go around and pretend that people against gay marriage arent homophobes. Call me old fashioned but im genuinely sad that this is what it has come to, before people could be proud about being hateful bigots, now theyve got to weasel around and pretend its 'this' or 'that' thats the realllll problem.

Jesus wasnt a cake maker, my point was, jesus wasnt a buisiness man either, so 'making a cake shop with christian values' is like making a duck farm based on buddhist teachings with a candle shop in the corner based on satanistic vibes.

My point was jesus was nice and generally didnt throw stones at people, or cast them out of his sight. Sorry for thinking jesus was decent though some of the time and would be rolling his eyes at twats like these. Nice to know for future reference.

 

[figadapaura]

Don't really care if it's their business. People with backwards views should be made an example of.

Fuck them.

 

[rCIZZLE]

Was there not a case in Colorado recently where the judge said that a bakery wasn't able to decline to make a same-sex marriage cake?

That cake only seems to have 2 men at the top and not promoting any political groups. Was the bakery in the OP allowed to make the Bert and Ernie cake without any further message on it?

 

[Opiate]

Again, the 9/11 cake would be offensive to most people.

I want to emphasize, particularly ,that this is an awful way to determine what political messages should and should not be allowed. In fact, by this measurement, it would have been completely acceptable to discriminate against gays just a few years ago, as endorsement of gay marriage only passed the 50% threshold within the last few years. "Most people find it offensive" is how minority views have been marginalized for millennia. It's how laws with double standards exist. It allows people to discriminate against X legally because "oh that discrimination is fine because most people find that offensive."

Theyre not asking the people to promote a political message, just print one.

Which is de facto promotion.

Could a print shop refuse to service a union for making flyers about raising the minimum wage? Why should they be able to?

Yes they can. Because they do not want to endorse the political message. Should a print shop be able to refuse service to Nazis who want to print flyers proposing that all Jews wear ID badges?

 

[czk]

Does a plumber have the right to not fix a toilet in a house owned by a married gay couple?

In a normal World it should be obvious that a buisness man serves anybody he wants to.

 

[CrocMother]

Yes

Discrimination under the guise of Religious Freedom when it comes to America is the most retarded thing to have come into existence, and I'm very happy that this will be a staple case to point to when the need arises again.

You mean the Hobby Lobby case?

 

[Mastadon]

In a normal World it should be obvious that a buisness man serves anybody he wants to.

That's patently not the case.

 

[markot]

And by printing it, they are promoting the message. Why do you think they're getting printed? They're facilitating that promotion. It's not about word getting out about Company A supporting Message X. It's about the fact that, by providing the service you do, you are actively promoting Message X, because that's why you've been asked (and offered money) to do it.

Again, I was briefly a freelance, self employed animator. I did projects for clients. If, say, the Republicans asked me to make an anti-abortion advert, should I be obligated to do it? They're not asking me to promote it, just make a film... promoting it.

Promotion means something other than simply producing.