Support NeoGAF

[Moondrop]

Can't they refuse service on the grounds that gay Bert and Ernie is non-canon?

 

[Mastadon]

I wonder at what point people can say no though... Obviously the couple are being bigots. But at what point legally can they deny service, such as to extremist or racist groups?

They can say no to anyone, as long it the decision isn't based on the things covered by equality law such as race, gender, religion etc. Racist groups are obviously not covered by law.

 

[besada]

I understand that, but I think the debate is up in the air whether this is about that at all. I was under the impression it was the design of the cake they had an issue with, not the sexual orientation of the customer. In that way, I don't see this as discrimination, because they aren't discriminating against the customer.

That's probably going to be up to a court to decide. Personally, I think their reasoning is lightly disguised homophobia, but I'm not a judge.

 

[Flo_Evans]

This is literally the dumbest comparison I've ever seen. I can't tell if it's a joke.

What comparison?

I'm just trying to figure out how far this "you make cakes, therefore you must make whatever I want you to" line of reasoning goes.

 

[Mastadon]

Assuming you're in the U.S., then yes, you can refuse. You can refuse service to anyone who doesn't fall under a protected class in your state.

The laws in the UK seem to be considerably less clear.

I'm not sure it's any less clear here in the UK, it's very much the same concept.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

What comparison?

I'm just trying to figure out how far this "you make cakes, therefore you must make whatever I want you to" line of reasoning goes.

Well, under your example the store only makes chocolate cakes, it's not discrimination or choosing who to server or what to design based on personally held religious beliefs. They literally only hold the capacity to make chocolate cakes.

I don't go demanding shit from stores who don't have the capacity to do something I need when they can't do it.

 

[Keri]

A business is a legal tax entity. That's an important distinction for me. Its the difference between being paid $20 by a few people in the neighborhood for yard work and operating a yard work organization.

Ok, that doesn't answer the question, because its possible to be a "business" while still operating as a single person. So, a prostitute who forms a sole proprietorship (somewhere where its legal), and who doesn't employ any other individuals, is now required to have sex with all who seek out her services? It sounds like you're saying the amount of times she has sex with people for money, dictates her obligation to continue having sex for money...is this the distinguishing factor for you?

 

[besada]

I'm not sure it's any less clear here in the UK, it's very much the same concept.

I probably should have said they're less clear to me

I'm familiar with the particular set of laws, and how they function in the U.S., but not as clear on the specific laws and provisions that do the same thing in the UK. Wording of the laws can have outsized effects sometimes, so I can't say much about the UK laws.

 

[clem84]

No picture of the cake? Maybe it was offensive in some way?

edit: just the slogan above the puppets??? Wow... Could it have been something dirty, like really offensive? That still wouldn't be an excuse but I'm just trying to understand here.

 

[The Technomancer]

Ok, that doesn't answer the question, because its possible to be a "business" while still operating as a single person. So, a prostitute who forms a sole proprietorship (somewhere where its legal), and who doesn't employ any other individuals, is now required to have sex with all who seek out her services? It sounds like you're saying the amount of times she has sex with people for money, dictates her obligation to continue having sex for money...is this the distinguishing factor for you?

We can derive all kinds of exceptions based on types of business. I've already said I'm uncomfortable with a one size fits all solution anyway. Everyone keeps invoking all kinds of unrelated thought examples about an issue that concerns custom cake making, a process which takes probably less than a day, and is essentially the production of a retail good

 

[Flo_Evans]

Assuming you're in the U.S., then yes, you can refuse. You can refuse service to anyone who doesn't fall under a protected class in your state.

The laws in the UK seem to be considerably less clear.

If I say I will not make a white cake, I don't like it, but I will gladly bake you a chocolate cake then am I refusing service? Or not agreeing to the terms of a contract?

I don't see how you can force people in any given profession to make whatever the customer demands.

 

[Nozem]

They could just say that that particular design would cost $100.000 to make. That would definitely be legal no?

 

[The Technomancer]

If I say I will not make a white cake, I don't like it, but I will gladly bake you a chocolate cake then am I refusing service? Or not agreeing to the terms of a contract?

I don't see how you can force people in any given profession to make whatever the customer demands.

Did they advertise as producing white and chocolate cakes?

 

[Kinyou]

I wonder at what point people can say no though... Obviously the couple are being bigots. But at what point legally can they deny service, such as to extremist or racist groups?

EDIT: Maybe they just cant deny based on sex, race, sexual orientation, etc...... they may be able to deny service based on the content of the cake not the people ordering it?

Isn't that exactly what they're doing? They're denying to make that specific cake. But they're not banning any customers.

Did they advertise as producing white and chocolate cakes?

Well what exactly do they advertise? Maybe it's

"Custom Cakes!! *"



*not all cakes may be approved

 

[Shamrock7r]

I may have missed it. Has it been specifically said what the message on the cake said?

 

[gerg]

So? They didn't choose to make that cake. I've mentioned it a few times, but when I was a self-employed animator, should I have been obligated to make short films for literally anyone that asked irrespective of my own personal support of their goals just because "I chose to make films"?

I think the difference here, as arbitrary as it might seem, might lie in what does and doesn't constitute a public service. (I'm just spitballing ideas here.)

But generally I agree with you that freelance designers, illustrators and animators (and anyone else in that broad field of categories) should have the right to refuse work if it doesn't align with their personal beliefs, to a degree. (I still have intuitive trouble accepting that someone should have the right to refuse a design commission for a pamphlet proposing racial equality, for example.)

 

[besada]

If I say I will not make a white cake, I don't like it, but I will gladly bake you a chocolate cake then am I refusing service? Or not agreeing to the terms of a contract?

This is a dumb analogy, as someone else has already pointed out. If you only make chocolate cakes, then no, you can't be forced to make a cake you can't make. None of this has any bearing on what we're discussing.

If you made two flavors of cakes, but would only sell your white cakes to white people, then you'd be breaking the law, because you're denying part of your existing service to people based on race, which is a protected class.

If you have a service, you can't deny part or all of that service to someone based on discrimination against a protected class. You may -- or may not -- depending on the locality and what a judge thinks, be able to deny based on the political message embedded in the cake.

 

[RM8]

Most of these analogies are bad, if you refuse to do your job for someone because of their sexuality, race, beliefs, etc. then I definitely think it's wrong, period. "It's my right to be a bigot" sucks as an argument and I'm glad it's not tolerated.

 

[Kai Dracon]

This is actually an interesting one to me. If a cake company refused to simply put the names of two people on a cake due to bigotry about the customers' sexual orientation, I feel that is pretty clear cut. You're refusing basic service to people because of an inherent personal quality. Be it race or sexuality.

On the other hand, this is an actual promotional design (using copyrighted characters, for what it's worth) with a slogan, etc. Maybe the motivation for refusal is bigotry, but that door may swing both ways. A business could also refuse to manufacture, say, racist propaganda material for a neo nazi group.

Personally I would lean towards the notion that you cannot discriminate against someone unless they wish to use you as an intermediary for another function. That doesn't mean society cannot disapprove of the discrimination and act on it. If you don't want to host a convention on human rights at your center, fine. But people can then take their business elsewhere. Likewise a nazi rally can be turned away.

Naturally some prejudiced people reason that recognizing the basic existence of gay people is itself "promoting the gay agenda". Under that view even putting two names on a wedding cake would be "creating propaganda". That reasoning in fact is behind bigoted declarations in some right wing political positions in the US right now. But a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that kind of specious argument shouldn't fly.

 

[Bulzeeb]

well unless sesame street goes and says something about making them gay I will also object, I don't care about gay cakes or couple each can do whatever they want with their lives but I am a total sucker for the cannon/lore/consistency of my games/movies/shows/etc

[spoilers]I really dislike fan fictions ¬¬[/spoilers]

 

[Flo_Evans]

This is a dumb analogy, as someone else has already pointed out. If you only make chocolate cakes, then no, you can't be forced to make a cake you can't make. None of this has any bearing on what we're discussing.

If you made two flavors of cakes, but would only sell your white cakes to white people, then you'd be breaking the law, because you're denying part of your existing service to people based on race, which is a protected class.

If you have a service, you can't deny part or all of that service to someone based on discrimination against a protected class. You may -- or may not -- depending on the locality and what a judge thinks, be able to deny based on the political message embedded in the cake.

I'm perfectly capable of making a white cake I just don't want to.

The bakery here is perfectly capable of making a gay Bert and Ernie cake but they don't want to. They are not denying anyone a cake, just a specific kind of cake they don't want to make.

They are not denying service, its a dispute over the terms of the service they provide.

 

[crazygambit]

Discrimination defense force is on the ball today. Anyway, no people you cant discriminate based on arbitrary personal standards. That's one of the costs of doing business that one must deal with when you want to function in a modern society that has the capacity to enforce the contracts also essential to carrying out said business.

You can't discriminate against people. If gay people show up to the bakery to buy a premade cake and are refused service because they're gay, then you'd have a case for discrimination.

You can refuse to make any commission for any artistic reason of your choosing. You don't like the muppets? No one can force you to make a muppet cake. You don't like gay muppets? No one can force you to make a cake with gay muppets on it. You don't like gay marriage? No one can force you to make a cake supporting gay marriage.

If you're ok with potentially taking a hit on the business because of your beliefs, then no one should have a problem with that.

 

[AbsolutBro]

well unless sesame street goes and says something about making them gay I will also object, I don't care about gay cakes or couple each can do whatever they want with their lives but I am a total sucker for the cannon/lore/consistency of my games/movies/shows/etc

I'm more annoyed by the basic assumption that two dudes living together means they must be gay. Beyond that, there is literally 0 to suggest that these two characters are gay. Not to mention the writers of Sesame Street saying repeatedly they're not.

 

[hachi]

I wonder at what point people can say no though... Obviously the couple are being bigots. But at what point legally can they deny service, such as to extremist or racist groups?

EDIT: Maybe they just cant deny based on sex, race, sexual orientation, etc...... they may be able to deny service based on the content of the cake not the people ordering it?

No, I don't think that's obvious.

 

[balladofthewindfish]

Most of these analogies are bad, if you refuse to do your job for someone because of their sexuality, race, beliefs, etc. then I definitely think it's wrong, period. "It's my right to be a bigot" sucks as an argument and I'm glad it's not tolerated.

I don't think anyone who is defending their right to decline service in this case is arguing that, though.

 

[Mononoke]

EDIT: This story keeps changing. So I guess it was a political statement cake and not a wedding cake.

 

[Chuckie]

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.

But it is a fine line.
Refusing a picture of a black person on a cake would be discrimination right?
So is refusing a picture of an interracial couple on a cake discrimination? I still think so.
The next step would be an interracial wedding decoration couple on top of the cake.

An interracial marriage is not an political statement, denying those couples a photo on the cake (or dolls) is in my eyes discrimination.

 

[erawsd]

This is actually an interesting one to me. If a cake company refused to simply put the names of two people on a cake due to bigotry about the customers' sexual orientation, I feel that is pretty clear cut. You're refusing basic service to people because of an inherent personal quality. Be it race or sexuality.

On the other hand, this is an actual promotional design (using copyrighted characters, for what it's worth) with a slogan, etc. Maybe the motivation for refusal is bigotry, but that door may swing both ways. A business could also refuse to manufacture, say, racist propaganda material for a neo nazi group.

Personally I would lean towards the notion that you cannot discriminate against someone unless they wish to use you as an intermediary for another function. That doesn't mean society cannot disapprove of the discrimination and act on it. If you don't want to host a convention on human rights at your center, fine. But people can then take their business elsewhere. Likewise a nazi rally can be turned away.

Naturally some prejudiced people reason that recognizing the basic existence of gay people is itself "promoting the gay agenda". Under that view even putting two names on a wedding cake would be "creating propaganda". That reasoning in fact is behind bigoted declarations in some right wing political positions in the US right now. But a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that kind of specious argument shouldn't fly.

Here is an image of what they wanted to cake to look like:

Its not actually a wedding cake, its a Cake with a message supporting Gay Marriage.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Here is an image of what they wanted to cake to look like:

Its not actually a wedding cake, its a Cake with a message supporting Gay Marriage.

I would refuse to make that cake because its fucking ugly.

 

[AdventureMike]

I'm more annoyed by the basic assumption that two dudes living together means they must be gay. Beyond that, there is literally 0 to suggest that these two characters are gay. Not to mention the writers of Sesame Street saying repeatedly they're not.

Exactly. They're just friends and roommates. That is all the creators have said they have been over and over and over.

 

[RM8]

I don't think anyone who is defending their right to decline service in this case is arguing that, though.

I know, people are comparing it to not wanting to make a particular flavor of cake.

 

[The Technomancer]

Exactly. They're just friends and roommates. That is all the creators have said they have been over and over and over.

Honestly growing up I thought they were brothers. Probably because I had a similarly antagonistic relationship with my brother who I also shared a room with

 

[speculawyer]

Would you want to eat a cake from a place that doesn't want to make one for you?

Publicly shame them and walk away.

 

[SamuelSupreme]

I need more information. If they were refused service because of their orientation, then yeah thats a big problem. If they said "I'm sorry mate Im not making that kind of cake but I'd be happy to make you something else" that kind of changes things.

 

[AdventureMike]

Honestly growing up I thought they were brothers. Probably because I had a similarly antagonistic relationship with my brother who I also shared a room with

That's fair. I always thought of them as having a Jerry and George, Seinfeld type friendship but they actually lived together. There are plenty of instances where they just hang out as two buddies having lunch or coffee without Kramer/Elaine around.

 

[RulkezX]

Assuming you're in the U.S., then yes, you can refuse. You can refuse service to anyone who doesn't fall under a protected class in your state.

The laws in the UK seem to be considerably less clear.

Less clear how ? It's not even remotely the same thing.

If I enter my local bakery and ask for them to make a cake of flavour X they can say "nope" and I will leave and go somewhat else.

A business here is free to run as it sees fit as long as it treats all races, genders, sexual orientations and religions equally.

 

[Kinsei]

How so? Gay rights take precedent over religious or free speech?

Yes, if said speech promotes hate.

Uh, it's literally the exact same situation in reverse. I'm getting the impression you don't like christians.

One is hate speech, the other isn't.

I don't hate Christians, I hate bigots.

 

[boiled goose]

They are not refusing the customers because they are members of a protected calss, just the design.

I am going to have to say it is ok.

 

[captive]

Here is an image of what they wanted to cake to look like:

Its not actually a wedding cake, its a Cake with a message supporting Gay Marriage.

thats horrible.
Seeing that makes me think even more that they were just trying to start a fight.

Would you want to eat a cake from a place that doesn't want to make one for you?

Publicly shame them and walk away.

yes, lets publicly shame everyone that disagrees with us.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Here is an image of what they wanted to cake to look like:

Its not actually a wedding cake, its a Cake with a message supporting Gay Marriage.

Okay, yeah, that's a political statement. A personalized cake can be decorated in a multitude of ways without actually becoming political.

"We bake your cake and sign it with your names!" - sorry folks, you have to treat Bob and Steve the same as Bob and Linda.

"We reserve the right to refuse the content of promotional material." May protect bigots in some cases, but also protects businesses from being used -by- bigots.

 

[arab]

someone quote my avatar

 

[RM8]

yes, lets publicly shame everyone that disagrees with us.

Bigots? Yes. Tolerating intolerance is dumb.

 

[crazygambit]

I don't think anyone who is defending their right to decline service in this case is arguing that, though.

I think this bears repeating, but we need to be very clear on this. They are not refusing service. They are refusing a commission.

You can always refuse a commission, for any reason. It could be you don't feel qualified to do it, it's too expensive to produce, if you don't have time, or if you don't agree with its message.

They don't owe anyone an explanation and all the analogies I've seen in this thread aren't very accurate.

If they refused to sell any of the cakes they have in their store to the gay couple because it would be used in a gay wedding, then we'd have a case for discrimination.

 

[Sanjuro]

Back in my day, I just asked them to make me cakes without telling them that Donatello was gay.

 

[Hollycat]

Here is an image of what they wanted to cake to look like:

Its not actually a wedding cake, its a Cake with a message supporting Gay Marriage.

Wat...
They were just looking to start something with that cake.

That makes it pretty clear this was about the cake and not the people.

Edit: that first things not fair to say. If they knew this was a Christian bakery and went in with that as opposed to another bakery, that was kind of a dick move, if not....

 

[Mango The Magician]

Here is an image of what they wanted to cake to look like:

Its not actually a wedding cake, its a Cake with a message supporting Gay Marriage.

As an artist, if I owned some sort of shop in which I offered custom art, I'd refuse this as well. Not because I have any strong feelings towards Marriage equality (I honestly believe that gay marriage should be legal everywhere), but because I wouldn't want something I made that had some kind of tie to me being used in such a political way regardless of it's stance. Which isn't to say it's overtly political mind you, just that I'd avoid rustling anyone's feathers.

Also, fictional characters are serious business, and I'm sure something like this could easily upset fans of both Bert and Ernie.

 

[Kinsei]

Wat...
They were just looking to start something with that cake.

That makes it pretty clear this was about the cake and not the people.

No, it is clearly about the people, they flat out said that.

From the OP:

In their online statement, the company's general manager, Daniel McArthur said: "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."

 

[CyclopsRock]

I think the difference here, as arbitrary as it might seem, might lie in what does and doesn't constitute a public service. (I'm just spitballing ideas here.)

But generally I agree with you that freelance designers, illustrators and animators (and anyone else in that broad field of categories) should have the right to refuse work if it doesn't align with their personal beliefs, to a degree. (I still have intuitive trouble accepting that someone should have the right to refuse a design commission for a pamphlet proposing racial equality, for example.)

That all seems relatively arbitrary. I appreciate you said it's "intuitive" etc, but that's not really a justifiable basis for a law or set of rights.

 

[Hollycat]

No, it is clearly about the people, they flat out said that.

From the OP:

They said "this order was at odds with our beliefs" That clearly contradicts what you are saying.

 

[hachi]

No, it is clearly about the people, they flat out said that.

From the OP:

Um... did you read what you quoted? It says exactly the opposite of what you imply.