Support NeoGAF

[ab.aeterno]

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?

I believe that case explicitly has the owners denying the couple, not a cake with a political message. I don't remember formarriage isough.

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.

Which is interesting, given that Christ equated divorce and remarriage with adultery, yet I have not heard people argue that creating a cake for a couple with someone entering a second marriage is proclaiming v the validity of their lifestyle, nor of bakeries refusing to make such cakes.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Promotion means something other than simply producing.

Not when the thing you're producing is promotional, which it is in this case (And in the case of political leaflets). This isn't like you're supplying the Nazi Party with, I dunno, toilet paper. You're literally supplying their promotional material.

 

[erawsd]

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.

Which is a different situation since that business refused to sell any cake to the gay wedding. In this case, we have a business refusing to make a very specific cake with a message.

 

[StuKen]

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.

Pre factum political intent from a cake. Magnificent.

The political act comes from the people that wished to create it. The cake maker refused on the grounds of that political act. Unfortunately for the baker that particular political act, being gay, is protected under statute. Unless this currently non existent cake willed itself into some kind of quantum non existence where it can somehow transfer the discrimination enough to protect the baker from accusations of bigotry and legal ramification while simultaneously not actually existing so the gays cant have it there might be a flaw in the political statement aspect.

 

[UncleSporky]

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.

I was being a little facetious, but really, what if the people who went in and ordered the cake were a white couple, asking for an interracial cake for who-knows-what reason? They wouldn't be discriminating against those people, because they're not ordering a cake depicting themselves. Their refusal would be objectionable, but in that case, surely it's simply a matter of design rather than people?

 

[soepje]

Their company, their decision.

No problem with this.

This. I do hope it hurts their business though.

 

[Mastadon]

Should a print shop be able to refuse service to Nazis who want to print flyers proposing that all Jews wear ID badges?

Yes of course they should be able to refuse service, because in your situation no one is being discriminated against. Any buisness has the right to deny service, as long as that decision isn't made on the basis of things like race, sex, religion etc. Political standing is not covered by this law.

 

[JDSN]

I see most of the dumb arguments to support this have been made, has someone already compared this to a cake with a little girl sucking a man's dick?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Pre factum political intent from a cake. Magnificent.

The political act comes from the people that wished to create it. The cake maker refused on the grounds of that political act. Unfortunately for the baker that particular political act, being gay, is protected under statute. Unless this currently non existent cake willed itself into some kind of quantum non existence where it can somehow transfer the discrimination enough to protect the baker from accusations of bigotry and legal ramification while simultaneously not actually existing so the gays cant have it there might be a flaw in the political statement aspect.

Are you aware that the cake was advertising a pressure group on it?

 

[.GqueB.]

I see most of the dumb arguments to support this have been made, has someone already compared this to a cake with a little girl sucking a man's dick?

Lol, wot?

 

[Two Words]

Yes of course they refuse service, because in your situation no one is being discriminated against. Any buisness has the right to deny service, as long as that decision isn't made on the basis of things like race, sex, religion etc. Political standing is not covered by this law.

Cakes don't have race, sex, or religion.

Can a religious baker refuse to make a "God isn't real" cake?

 

[woolley]

What is with peoples fascination with making Bert and Ernie gay? They're best friends and that's as far as it goes.

 

[Mastadon]

Cakes don't have race, sex, or religion.

Can a religious baker refuse to make a "God isn't real" cake?

What are you talking about? I was responding to a specific example from a different poster.

And yes, I would imagine that a religious baker could refuse to do so in that situation.

 

[hachi]

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.

That would need a separate thread, but I can say that the opposition to gay marriage is neither immediately equatable with bigotry nor even with homophobia. It may be found many times in conjunction with those sentiments, but can also be found entirely apart from them. You should, for instance, read or meet some perfectly lucid and compassionate Catholics who are opposed to this issue and see how it fits into their views before condemning everyone who sees social institutions differently from yourself. Or even the current Pope, who has made statements in support of extending civil rights to couples of other orientations, but who is consistent in opposing anything that reduces marriage to a validating contract between sexual partners rather than a participation in the act of creating a new family, and who equally opposes reproductive technologies even in heterosexual couples, or anything that reduces the status of children to a selective and contractual choice rather than a gift.

 

[Two Words]

What are you talking about? I was responding to a specific example from a different poster.

I know. And?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

You mean the Hobby Lobby case?

 

[Chuckie]

I was being a little facetious, but really, what if the people who went in and ordered the cake were a white couple, asking for an interracial cake for who-knows-what reason? They wouldn't be discriminating against those people, because they're not ordering a cake depicting themselves. Their refusal would be objectionable, but in that case, surely it's simply a matter of design rather than people?

What if we take it a step further. You want a cake with your picture on it. But you can't put on a picture of yourself if you are black? See as a white person you can get a cake with a picture of yourself on it, but as a black you cannot. However the black person could get a cake with a random white dudes pic on it.

Is he still not discriminated against?

 

[Opiate]

Yes of course they refuse service, because in your situation no one is being discriminated against. Any buisness has the right to deny service, as long as that decision isn't made on the basis of things like race, sex, religion etc.

I agree. The important thing here is that the cake is a political statement. It isn't just a cake. It isn't even just a cake with male/male wedding figures. It is a cake that apparently has explicit pro-gay-marriage statements on it.

If the cake makers are refusing to serve the gay couple entirely, no matter what cake they ask for, then I agree, they are breaking the law. If they are refusing to make specific cakes that contain political statements they happen to disagree with, that's a different argument entirely.

I'm a straight male. If I went to them and requested a cake that says "gay marriage is a wonderful thing" on it, they would have the right to refuse to make my cake. Not because they are discriminating against me specifically (I would presume they have no problem with me marrying a woman), but because the specific cake I requested contains a political message they do not want to implicitly endorse.

 

[Mastadon]

I know. And?

And I was wondering why you were applying it to a point that has no relevance to the example I was discussing?

 

[Red Arremer]

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.

If the baker refuses every cake design that the customer requests, and doesn't offer any alternatives, then that is a refusal of their service, and that should be the point where the question "why do you refuse to make these cakes, why are you not giving this customer any service?" has to be asked.
Do we know if the bakery in this case would have refused baking a cake with a different motive, or would they have refused any service?

We know only one fact about this situation: The bakery refused to create a particular cake with a certain motif, because it's a motif they do not want to portray. We also know the reasoning behind it, but the reasoning behind the cake design being rejected doesn't matter, as long as the customers themselves are not rejected.
If the bakery said that "we will not make you any cake, you sinners", then it would be discriminatory. But saying that "we don't want to make that cake because we don't agree with the political message on it" is, in my opinion, as a homosexual, completely legitimate. It doesn't matter if they came to this conclusion because of what they think the Bible says, or because they just didn't like how the colors of Ernie and Bert resonated with the colors of the organization's logo.

The bakery should have the option to reject a design for a cake, as long as they don't discriminate against the customers.
The customer should have the option to seek out a different bakery that will make the design they want.

I hope I'm clear in my message, my grasp of the English language is sometimes a bit hazy.

Spoiler

And no, your tone was not confrontational at all!

 

[czk]

That's patently not the case.

What is the difference

 

[derdriu]

Woo, Northern Ireland!

Although I'm surprised they were so vague as to refer to them as 'Christian'. That can mean a lot of things over here, really.

The story says that they went to the Christian Institute' for advice, and they are supporting them

" The Christian Institute (CI) is a British evangelical Christian pressure group." according to Wikipedia.

I don't see someone from the Catholic church running to them. But I could be wrong.

 

[The Technomancer]

Basically you're mad because you think that people comparing gay marriage with negative things are reinforcing the idea that gay marriage is a negative thing.

They're actually not. They're just saying "these are things that at least one cake shop might decide not to put on a cake, whether that thing should be considered objectionable or not." The what-if can be anything.

Can a shop refuse to make a cake depicting a heterosexual marriage on it, just because they've decided they don't want any trouble at all and aren't depicting anything remotely related to sexual preference on any of their cakes? The only wedding cake they sell has "it is your wedding" printed on it in comic sans. Is that alright?

No, I'm mad because people are acting like what we find offensive and unacceptable is arbitrary and therefore "we can't comment on what anyone else finds offensive or objectionable because its all just completely relative man". They're certainly subjective, insomuch as they derive from personal feelings, but that's not the same thing as arbitrary, and I believe that my foundation for gay marriage not being offensive is stronger then their foundation for it being offensive.

 

[MikeDown]

Wouldn't this be copyright infringement anyway?

It depends, say all you want to do is slap your own picture of Bert and Ernie getting it on, that wouldn't be infringement because it is your own work. Had this experience when I went down to my local bakery to have them do a Mass Effect themed cake.

 

[markot]

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."



Which is de facto promotion.



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?

Except that the law has been using that yard stick for a long time now? Go back 50 years and things would be different, 50 years from now, theyll be different again, whats your point? 50 years ago we wouldnt even be talking about gay marriage as anything but a joke. 50 years from now, who knows? I think all political messages should be allowed, and only if the person being asked to make it finds it offensive should they be allowed to refuse a service. And if that is unreasonable they should go to court and a court decide the issue. All they had to do was make the cake.

How is it promotion? Does a person promote gay marriage if a print shop uses their shop to print something in favour? Or against? Or are they just doing their job as a print shop?

Call me old fashioned, but doing your job isnt promoting an idea, unless you are asked to put that in your shop window, have your logo on it... etc... Just do you job? What a novel idea.

Except its not just about a political message, its about discrimination. Its a political message of discrimination. Yes they should be able to refuse the nazis cause that is offensive to most people. Should they be able to refuse someone who thinks marriage should be open to all consenting couples no matter the gender? Should they be able to refuse a group that supports the rights of disabled veterans?

What ever happened to just doing your damn job and keeping your beliefs to yourself? Someone wants a beer? You dont drink but work at a bottle shop? Moral quandry?? Someone wants meat, your a vegetarian cashier?! Oh no!

Keep youre stone age beliefs to your self. Think people should get stoned for adultery. Think that jews are all condemned to hell for killing god. I dont care, most people dont care, just dont go coughing over everyone elses reasonable requests.

Caues if you want to go down all these rabbit holes defending these people, then lets go nuts. Technically, everything is a political message, every 'traditional' wedding cake a statement, every happy birthday a reinstatement of the idea that births are worth celebrating. (Oh no a Jehovahss witness runs a cake shop and doesnt believe in birthdays! Moral quandry!)

People like you guys are why kids are dying in hospitals due to 'parents religous beliefs'. Bam.

 

[Mastadon]

What is the difference

You said that in a normal world, a businessman can choose who he gives his business to. This is not the case. A businessman can not deny service to someone based on the colour of their skin, or due to their sexuality and so on. It's illegal in most places to do so.

 

[CyclopsRock]

No, I'm mad because people are acting like what we find offensive and unacceptable is arbitrary and therefore "we can't comment on what anyone else finds offensive or objectionable because its all just completely relative man". They're certainly subjective, insomuch as they derive from personal feelings, but that's not the same thing as arbitrary, and I believe that my foundation for gay marriage not being offensive is stronger then their foundation for it being offensive.

Who said you can't comment? We're talking about the law here, not comments or judgement.

 

[Two Words]

And I was wondering why you were applying it to a point that has no relevance to the example I was discussing?

Atheist views aren't covered under freedom from religious discrimination?

 

[UncleSporky]

What if we take it a step further. You want a cake with your picture on it. But you can't put on a picture of yourself if you are black? See as a white person you can get a cake with a picture of yourself on it, but as a black you cannot. However the black person could get a cake with a random white dudes pic on it.

Is he still not discriminated against?

So a design can be refused across the board, but only becomes personal discrimination in some cases, specifically those cases where the person wants the design to represent themselves personally.

 

[Opiate]

What is "support" here? If the business had made the cake would that be taken as an endorsement of the cause by the business? I don't think so. Fulfilling an order does not constitute an expression of support.

I feel very strongly that it does.

And yes, there is a grey area here. As others have mentioned, if the cake was depicting a black man and the bakery had a "problem" with that this discussion would probably be very different. If it literally was a swastika on the other hand, most people would probably be on the bakery's side. Its something that's culturally defined, and I am doing my damnedest to push the cultural definition in a direction thats accepting of homosexuality

I am very, very uncomfortable with the notion that it's okay to discriminate as long as our culture says it's okay. Swastikas are culturally unacceptable; therefore it's okay to discriminate. Homosexuality is (becoming) culturally acceptable; therefore it is not okay.

I think criteria that amorphous is ripe for exploitation, and also explicitly allows for discrimination against unpopular views because they are unpopular.

 

[Two Words]

I feel very strongly that it does.



I am very, very uncomfortable with the notion that it's okay to discriminate as long as our culture says it's okay. Swastikas are culturally unacceptable; therefore it's okay to discriminate. Homosexuality is (becoming) culturally acceptable; therefore it is not okay.

I think criteria that amorphous is ripe for exploitation, and also explicitly allows discrimination against unpopular views because they are unpopular.

That's why I think its fair to simply let the business owner to decide. Frankly, it just comes off too much like "Listen private business owner, YOU serve ME!" when demanding they have no right to choose what to make and what not to make entirely.

 

[UncleSporky]

That's why I think its fair to simply let the business owner to decide. Frankly, it just comes off too much like "Listen private business owner, YOU serve ME!" when demanding they have no right to choose what to make and what not to make entirely.

I know cake creation is one of the more trivial types of artistic expression/creation (or at least it is seen as such), but I'm picturing a woodworker who does custom woodworking, shaping it into whatever people want. Buy a wooden apple, or a hand-crafted wooden chair that looks like a space ship.

That's just so incredibly time consuming and expensive for it to be something that you don't personally want to make or agree with. I can't condone forcing that woodworker to make anything he doesn't feel like making. I think the idea of legally forcing him to take any design request at all is ridiculous.

Cakes might be another matter, but I'm just looking at it from the standpoint of any kind of custom content creation.

 

[StuKen]

I feel very strongly that it does.



I am very, very uncomfortable with the notion that it's okay to discriminate as long as our culture says it's okay. Swastikas are culturally unacceptable; therefore it's okay to discriminate. Homosexuality is (becoming) culturally acceptable; therefore it is not okay.

I think criteria that amorphous is ripe for exploitation, and also explicitly allows for discrimination against unpopular views because they are unpopular.

These laws only cover specific cases of refusal of service for matters entirely outside of the control of the person, race, sexuality, disabilities and the ever present special case religion. They are not amorphous reasons they are clearly defined intractable facets of the person. Being a Nazi furry is a choice being a gay disabled black Muslim sure as hell isnt.

 

[StuKen]

That's why I think its fair to simply let the business owner to decide. Frankly, it just comes off too much like "Listen private business owner, YOU serve ME!" when demanding they have no right to choose what to make and what not to make entirely.

They have no right to chose based on race, sex, sexuality, disability or religion. As I've said before you cannot refuse based on an intrinsic part of a person, everything else is fair game.

 

[Opiate]

These laws only cover specific cases of refusal of service for matters entirely outside of the control of the person, race, sexuality, disabilities and the ever present special case religion. They are not amorphous reasons they are clearly defined intractable facets of the person. Being a Nazi furry is a choice being a gay disabled black Muslim sure as hell isnt.

Absolutely, but they aren't being refused for being gay (or disabled or being black or being Muslim).

Again, if I requested this cake -- I'm a straight white male -- they could refuse to make the cake in question. They aren't refusing to serve me (or this couple) entirely, they're refusing to make this specific cake with that specific political message.

If, instead, the cake makers refuse to make any cake for the gay couple, then that is clearly discrimination and deserves to be punished. That doesn't seem to be the case in this situation, though. This is a particular cake with an explicitly stated political message, apparently.

They have no right to chose based on race, sex, sexuality, disability or religion. As I've said before you cannot refuse based on an intrinsic part of a person, everything else is fair game.

Again, I agree completely, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. If I requested the exact same cake, they could refuse service. Not because I'm straight, or because I'm white, or because I'm male, but because the cake I request expressly endorses a political message they don't agree with.

 

[czk]

You said that in a normal world, a businessman can choose who he gives his business to. This is not the case. A businessman can not deny service to someone based on the colour of their skin, or due to their sexuality and so on. It's illegal in most places to do so.

Yup and IMO its not normal. Its his buisness he should have the choice with whome to work with. If a goverment official can tell him that he has to work with this one or that the it doesnt have anything to do with a free market

 

[BossLackey]

Their company, their decision.

No problem with this.

Agreed. While I don't agree with their "morals", it's their business. I don't understand why this is an issue.

 

[The Technomancer]

I am very, very uncomfortable with the notion that it's okay to discriminate as long as our culture says it's okay. Swastikas are culturally unacceptable; therefore it's okay to discriminate. Homosexuality is (becoming) culturally acceptable; therefore it is not okay.

I think criteria that amorphous is ripe for exploitation, and also explicitly allows for discrimination against unpopular views because they are unpopular.

But the line has to be drawn somewhere. We recognize the need for protected classes, which are the very definition of "the line". Racial minorities have fallen on one side of the line for a while now, homosexuals increasingly are as well, neo-nazis probably never will. We know what a society without "the line" looks like, there's a reason we drew it

Again, I feel like people are making this out to be more arbitrary than it actually is. I would be uncomfortable producing a piece of neo-nazi media not because "they make me uncomfortable" but because of what they very concretely stand for, which is violence and racial terrorism.

 

[CyclopsRock]

But the line has to be drawn somewhere. We recognize the need for protected classes, which are the very definition of "the line". Racial minorities have fallen on one side of the line for a while now, homosexuals increasingly are as well, neo-nazis probably never will. We know what a society without "the line" looks like, there's a reason we drew it

Again, I feel like people are making this out to be more arbitrary than it actually is. I would be uncomfortable servicing neo-nazis not because "they make me uncomfortable" but because of what they very concretely stand for, which is violence and racial terrorism.

Do you think that there are specific political messages that require protection whilst others don't? Because that's the crux of this issue specifically.

 

[Two Words]

They have no right to chose based on race, sex, sexuality, disability or religion. As I've said before you cannot refuse based on an intrinsic part of a person, everything else is fair game.

Does the law extend to designs or just people?

And can a Christian baker refuse to make a "God isn't real" cake?

 

[The Technomancer]

Do you think that there are specific political messages that require protection whilst others don't? Because that's the crux of this issue specifically.

I would say that there are political messages and ideologies such as those that endorse the incitement of violence, terrorism, etc that we can recognize a right to refuse to produce. But no, I don't believe that, to use the political system I know, a Democratic print shop owner should be able to refuse to print flyers for the local Republican convention

 

[GingerNathan]

Does the law extend to designs or just people?

And can a Christian baker refuse to make a "God isn't real" cake?

Can a Baker who happens to be Gay refuse to make a cake for a customer who want's a anti-Gay marriage message on the cake, in a country where gay marriage is illegal?

I would say yes on all counts.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I would say that there are political messages and ideologies such as those that endorse the incitement of violence, terrorism, etc that we can recognize a right to refuse to produce. But no, I don't believe that, to use the political system I know, a Democratic print shop owner should be able to refuse to print flyers for the local Republican convention

Well, I guess that's where we part ways, then! The idea that you should be forced by law to provide a service to those hoping you achieve something with which you ultimately disagree seems utterly, utterly abhorrent to me.

 

[The Technomancer]

Well, I guess that's where we part ways, then! The idea that you should be forced by law to provide a service to those hoping you achieve something with which you ultimately disagree seems utterly, utterly abhorrent to me.

The reverse seems repulsive to me. What if every print shop in town is run by Christians and refuses service because your posters are for a pride event or something? Then you just don't get to post flyers or posters or information? That seems more dangerous to me.

 

[Hollycat]

No problem with this whatsoever. It's their company, and these are established characters who aren't officially gay. They are running a bakery, not writing fanfiction.

And besides, they weren't turned down because they were gay, they were turned down because of the nature of the cake.
If they had ordered something else, there would have been no problem.


Considering the defense forces here though, I wouldn't be surprised if someone would get upset at them for not making a penis cake with a loli on it upon request.

 

[poppabk]

Yes, this. It's this constant equivalence between being gay/supporting gay rights and hate speech that I'm increasingly tired of. I saw it happening when there was mounting pressure for the CEO of Mozilla to step down after it was found he'd donated money to Proposition 8; some tried to make the case that it's a slippery slope and someone losing their job for being homophobic is like losing their job for being gay (or pro-gay rights). Nope, not really comparable.

So do you think a Bakery ran by homosexuals should have been compelled to make yes to prop 8 cakes for a pro proposition 8 rally?

 

[Kinsei]

I don't think they should be able to refuse to make the cake because they are homophobic. It's like a photographer refusing to do a family photo for a gay couple but they'll still take their photos separately. It's still discrimination, just not as extreme so that they don't get in trouble with the law.

So do you think a Bakery ran by homosexuals should have been compelled to make yes to prop 8 cakes for a pro proposition 8 rally?

You're really comparing this cake to something that was used to take away human rights?

 

[PhantomHound]

The reverse seems repulsive to me. What if every print shop in town is run by Christians and refuses service because your posters are for a pride event or something? Then you just don't get to post flyers or posters or information? That seems more dangerous to me.

What if Nazis wanted swastikas printed form a Jewish print shop? That's an extreme, but I think company and individuals who manufacture certain artistic products should be able to refuse certain designs from anyone.

 

[RandyBobandy]

Not to defend them, but they're allowed to turn down any design, right? They don't have a legal obligation. Or do they?

 

[Flo_Evans]

I support the bakery.

I do marketing, recently the local republican party contacted us to make them a website and promotional materials. Since the company is 100% liberal and we have a large amount of gay and lesbian workers we refused.