I don't see how. What is wrong with porn? If a bakery has to make whatever I want on a cake then how can they refuse to make a huge cock going into a vagina?
Christian Cake Company Refuses to Create Cake for Group in Support of Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Deaf Spacker
- Start date
- Status
I don't see how. What is wrong with porn? If a bakery has to make whatever I want on a cake then how can they refuse to make a huge cock going into a vagina?
Please expand on this. If you don't mind, I mean.
PS. I'm not equating the two, you can replace the pornagraphic cake with something more analogical with homosexuality that is still morally obfuscated by religion if that makes for an easier comparison.
GingerNathan
Member
They would have grounds to refuse because of their religion. They would however make you a non pornographic cake despite believing you're a pervert
ab.aeterno
Member
It is incredibly amusing that commenting on anything in this thread on its own merits immediately draws people to make wild and grossly inaccurate inferences from what's actually written.
Reread what I wrote and point out where exactly I am saying or implying this, because what I'm actually doing is stating why a particular comparison being used is bad. I'm criticizing a specific thing that was said, on its own merits as an argument, and not speaking to anything else. I'm commenting on how fucking stupid an equivalence is between the two, not the underlying point.
Deified Data
Banned
Is there a link anywhere showing some of the bakery's other work?
Angry Puppy
Member
They are refusing to bake a certain type of cake, not denying all service to someone. It should be fine.
No, they really aren't.
Religion A instructs its followers to abstain from supporting pornography and gay marriage. Follower of religion A is presented with a request to make a cake that promotes pornography and after some deliberation concludes that doing so would contradict his or her religious beliefs and refuses. The same follower is presented with a request to make a cake that promotes gay marriage and after some deliberation concludes that doing so would contradict his or her religious beliefs and refuses.
Yes, gay marriage and pornography are different things. However, the ACT of refusing to make a porn cake and a gay cake due to religious beliefs is the same thing.
Who is saying they are equal?
They could also refuse to make a cake promoting adultery, lying, stealing, or whatever else they don't approve of.
I am saying, they should have a right to not make any cake they don't want to make. Other people say they should be basically forced to comply with any customer demands, simply by being a business engaged in making custom cakes.
People really need to quit dismissing analogies because they are not exactly the same.
If I say I will not make a website for pornography and I will also not make a website for a politician I don't agree with I am not saying a politician is the same as a pornographer. I am saying I don't agree with these things and shouldn't be forced to make them just because I make websites.
Seems like everyone agrees you shouldn't be forced to make pornographic cakes. Why is it such a struggle to accept you can object to a political message?
Winterfang
Banned
Bert and Ernie are Gay?
An explicit celebration of gay marriage is just soooo much more offensive than an implicit celebration of gay marriage by virtue of being a cake at the wedding of a gay couple.
One of these things doesn't end with the bakers telling the customers that they don't deserve basic human rights.
Zoe
Member
What? How would the requestor's rights be trampled on here?
Gonna be honest, my sarcasm meter can't define this post.
Labeling it as a wedding cake is disingenuous and gives the impression they were breaking up some couples happy day, when that isn't even close to the truth.
And once again, neither does the story in the OP.
UncleSporky
Member
Presumably this is them, because their blog is full of comments about the gay cake thing.
http://www.ashersbakingco.com/celebration-cakes/
Barbacoatl
Banned
They can be anything you want, as long as it fits your narrative. Personally, Bert and Ernie are Zimbabwean warlords trapped in time looking for a socially responsible cake.
Would kickstart the shit out of that movie...
If a potato salad can all that money, a cake sure deserves more.
ab.aeterno
Member
It's an implication of drawing a comparison using them saying the situations are the same.
People need to stop making bad analogies. It muddies the waters and is usually just kind of offensive. You really don't see why treating both situations as the same can be gross? Alright, here's the same quote with a couple changes.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say an example like that creates strange and kind of offensive parallels or equivalences between two subjects in proximity in an argument that are stated to be the same. There's also a history of treating homosexuality as inherently sexual that the comparison, likely unintentionally, taps into and that is a source of constant aggravation in discussions.
The fact that you're asking me this kind of reinforces what I said, because I actually agree with you and the underlying point. But expressing thoughts on the unsuitability of an argument made you draw a conclusion that wasn't being presented, and you asked a question based upon that conclusion in a way that came across aggressively.
Zoe
Member
They don't look like the kind of place that would do screen cakes.
They said a cake in support of gay marriage (a basic human right) is against their morals.
UncleSporky
Member
Specificity is important in discussions like this. They said the order was at odds with their beliefs. Not "the people," not even "the cake," but "the order." For what it's worth.
They did not specify what about it was at odds. It might seem easy to guess, but they didn't say whether it was about Ernie and Bert, or the logo, or the general idea behind all of it, or due to the fact that the cake would make a political statement about what their company supports, etc. They were quite terse.
They should have just lied and gave a different reason. They didn't expect backlash from this?
Captain Europe
Member
Fuck them, glad they are dumb enough to show their bigotry.
Yes, it does mean that they have a problem with gay people.
Yes, it does mean that they have a problem with gay people.
GingerNathan
Member
According to The Telegraph article
"They believe that producing the cake with the slogan and the logo of QueerSpace, a gay rights group the would-be customer supports, would amount to endorsing the campaign for the introduction of gay marriage in the province, and go against their religious convictions."
Once again don't agree, but I think this shows there decision was arguably political. Not really surprising in an area where religious sensibilities has been on a knife edge for decades.
In the U.S. we've had a couple of cases similar to this. Again, the UK's laws on the issue are different and may be interpreted by the courts differently, so these cases have no real bearing on this particular issue, but they do have bearing on the general discussion being held about whether a creative business can be made to create product they do not personally agree with.
Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock
Vanessa Willock attempted to hire Elane Photography (a sole-proprietorship) to photograph her commitment ceremony. Elane Photography refused on the grounds that she was unwilling to produce expression (photography) that expressed something she disagreed with. The Human Rights Commission found this to be incompatible with New Mexico's public accommodation laws, as it was de facto discrimination against Vanessa Willock based on her sexual orientation. The verdict was upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeals. The SCOTUS refused to hear further appeal.
GLSO vs. Hands On Originals
I think this is a better analogue, but it hasn't gone the distance, yet. The Kentucky Gay and Lesbian Service Organization attempts to hire Hands On Originals (a t-shirt shop) to produce t-shirts for the Lexington Pride event. Hands On Originals refuses because they don't agree with the message and don't feel they should have to print messages they don't believe in (eg: should not be required to express speech they do not agree with). The county Human Rights Commission has found the refusal of service to be a violation of Kentucky public accommodation laws. Further litigation is pending.
There are a couple of other cases percolating in the same neighborhood, including atheists suing a t-shirt shop, and a gay bar suing a print shop. Frankly, most of these get handled before they get to real court. Either the business goes bust, or the people discriminated against just move on, or a local HRC tells them to quit being dicks and they get the message.
These cases are part of what's driving the desire for laws that allow people to discriminate against customers based on religious reasons, because while it's not entirely settled law in the U.S., the trends have been pretty clear if you follow the cases. Regardless of what excuse proprietors are using in any particular argument, it usually comes down to: Is the business refusing service -- and for the purposes of the courts this means any service that the business extends to any patron -- to people of a protected class. If so, the proprietor usually loses.
On this particular case, which is going to be determined by an entirely different set of laws, the local Human Rights Commission has already weighed in, so I suspect the next step will be litigation, and we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.
Elane Photography, LLC v. Vanessa Willock
Vanessa Willock attempted to hire Elane Photography (a sole-proprietorship) to photograph her commitment ceremony. Elane Photography refused on the grounds that she was unwilling to produce expression (photography) that expressed something she disagreed with. The Human Rights Commission found this to be incompatible with New Mexico's public accommodation laws, as it was de facto discrimination against Vanessa Willock based on her sexual orientation. The verdict was upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeals. The SCOTUS refused to hear further appeal.
GLSO vs. Hands On Originals
I think this is a better analogue, but it hasn't gone the distance, yet. The Kentucky Gay and Lesbian Service Organization attempts to hire Hands On Originals (a t-shirt shop) to produce t-shirts for the Lexington Pride event. Hands On Originals refuses because they don't agree with the message and don't feel they should have to print messages they don't believe in (eg: should not be required to express speech they do not agree with). The county Human Rights Commission has found the refusal of service to be a violation of Kentucky public accommodation laws. Further litigation is pending.
There are a couple of other cases percolating in the same neighborhood, including atheists suing a t-shirt shop, and a gay bar suing a print shop. Frankly, most of these get handled before they get to real court. Either the business goes bust, or the people discriminated against just move on, or a local HRC tells them to quit being dicks and they get the message.
These cases are part of what's driving the desire for laws that allow people to discriminate against customers based on religious reasons, because while it's not entirely settled law in the U.S., the trends have been pretty clear if you follow the cases. Regardless of what excuse proprietors are using in any particular argument, it usually comes down to: Is the business refusing service -- and for the purposes of the courts this means any service that the business extends to any patron -- to people of a protected class. If so, the proprietor usually loses.
On this particular case, which is going to be determined by an entirely different set of laws, the local Human Rights Commission has already weighed in, so I suspect the next step will be litigation, and we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.
Monocle
Member
What if they refused to make a cake celebrating an interracial wedding, or a wedding for an Indian couple? Would that be fine?
It still doesn't really matter. Bakeries engage in the "political" non-exclusive support of straight marriages every day, yet somehow it's entirely different when a gay couple is concerned? For that matter, the cake itself is meant to celebrate the affair as that's what you do at a wedding, so having it be explicitly stated on the cake in writing doesn't change much.
More to the point, bakeries shouldn't be viewed as giving endorsement as much as providing resources for others to celebrate. After all, many straight couples shouldn't be getting married, but nobody blames the bakery for assisting in their wedding.
Deified Data
Banned
The B&E cake doesn't really look like something that belongs in their repertoire. Honestly I don't blame them for not making it, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Comments keeping it classy:
GingerNathan
Member
In the Uk people with religious beliefs are also a protected class, and it certainly muddies the water when both parties belong to one of such group. It will be interesting the out come of the legal action, I suspect the bakery will lose but I think possibly they weighed this up before rejecting the order. NI has major religious issues, and even though it's a time of relative peace religious change is still very slow. It's not a coincidence that the only part of the UK where gay marriage is illegal (or not legally recognised) is NI.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
If a bakery makes a Super Mario cake, they're not endorsing Nintendo products. They're just providing a client with a service. No custom-product provider need believe they're explicitly supporting or endorsing the cause or idea they're producing, and in fact it's likely better for all parties past and future that they do not.
Just to clarify your position: what specifically makes a state sanctioned marriage a basic human right for anyone? It doesn't follow the pattern of any other "basic right." It's a very specific state institution with (now controversial) social purposes and goals.
Monocle
Member
Personally I like this one:
Stating homosexuality should never be tolerated and bending over backward to claim that intolerance and discrimination are "very different."
Interesting. I think a tshirt shop being a public accommodation is stretching it. I genuinely wonder how my business would be considered, although AFAIK political affiliation or sexual orientation are not protected classes in my state.
Yup. In theory they could say, "You smell bad, no cake." Or "We don't serve people with freckles." In most states, protected classes are rigidly defined. You probably wouldn't want to try it in California, where the state holds a looser interpretation, but in Virginia? Sure, you can discriminate against anything you can think of that isn't a protected class. In Virginia the protected classes are: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status.
Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. Essentially, if you sell things to people, and anyone can be a customer (you're not a private club) and you aren't an actual religious institution, then you're a public accommodation. What's your business and state?
Red Arremer
Member
What if instead of a gay political message, the picture on the cake was a picture of a burning churd with the slogan "Allah will destroy all heathens"?
Or the Big Ben being blown up with the slogan "Remove the English slavers"?
It's not an obviously offensive picture as it only depicts the destruction of a building, and it contains a simple slogan with a religious or a political message. The pictures are not in bad taste (nothing pornographic, abusive or gruesome about it), and there's no foul language being used, either.
So for all intents and purposes, these cakes should be perfectly fine, and according to The Technomancer, and several other people in this thread, the bakery would not be allowed to refuse creating this cake.
Or the Big Ben being blown up with the slogan "Remove the English slavers"?
It's not an obviously offensive picture as it only depicts the destruction of a building, and it contains a simple slogan with a religious or a political message. The pictures are not in bad taste (nothing pornographic, abusive or gruesome about it), and there's no foul language being used, either.
So for all intents and purposes, these cakes should be perfectly fine, and according to The Technomancer, and several other people in this thread, the bakery would not be allowed to refuse creating this cake.
Lmao
How the hell are "remove the English slavers" and "support gay marriage" comparable??
Marketing and branding. We don't really sell things to individuals mostly services to other bussinesses. In MO.
Like I said earlier we turned down a request for a proposal from the local republican party, pretty much everyone here is liberal to a fault. There was even some discussion if we wanted to take a project from a company that makes clothing for concealed carry of firearms lol.
Red Arremer
Member
They're both political statements.
Deified Data
Banned
I think the question to ask here is this: that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against someone based on their race, religion, sexuality, etc. is a given, but should businesses be obliged to fulfill every need of that customer, especially if said need is outside their offered services? Should I be able to go into a classy restaurant and demand that "Save the whales" be written in ketchup on top of my filet? Should I be able to demand "Warren/Booker 2016" be spelled out on my plate in chopped up hot dogs? I honestly don't think so. When the restaurant inevitably refuses my request they're going to do so because it's outside the range of services they offer, not necessarily because they find me repellant.
If they asked the bakery to make them a classy, elegant cake with 2 grooms or brides on top then the issue would be very one-sided to me, but in this case they seem to be asking this upscale bakery to make them a cake that they could get at whatever Walmart equivalent is nearby.
If they asked the bakery to make them a classy, elegant cake with 2 grooms or brides on top then the issue would be very one-sided to me, but in this case they seem to be asking this upscale bakery to make them a cake that they could get at whatever Walmart equivalent is nearby.
StanleyStutters
Member
I disagree with the store's stance on gay marriage and their choice to refuse to make the cake, but I don't think they've done anything illegal. I think these places have the right to deny to create something they disagree with. For example, if someone wanted a joke cake with a curse word on it, wouldn't they have the right to deny it if they didn't want to use that language in their work?
Now, if they refused to make any cakes for gay people just because of their orientation that would be completely different.
Now, if they refused to make any cakes for gay people just because of their orientation that would be completely different.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I haven't really looked into it, but I would think that you can't use anti-discrimination as a means to force someone to create a product to sell. You just can't discriminate to decide to not sell a product you typically sell.
So in other words they would probably be forced to provide them a typical wedding cake with their names written on it, but they can't really be asked to additionally gay it up if that's something the baker never does.
At least that's how I would have anti-discrimination laws work.
So in other words they would probably be forced to provide them a typical wedding cake with their names written on it, but they can't really be asked to additionally gay it up if that's something the baker never does.
At least that's how I would have anti-discrimination laws work.
So like ASI catalogs and stuff? I honestly don't know. And political affiliation generally isn't a protected class.
I do not agree.
I replied to Flo_Evans earlier but here's a copy+paste if it was missed, admittedly it's not much but could be food for thought:
But did you explicitly say you refused service because they were Republican? If you did then this legalzoom FAQ says you may have violated their civil rights however I'm no expert on law:
Makes sense since police officers and etc would be refused service just about anywhere otherwise
Well how does the Supreme Court's recent ruling change this situation then? Didn't they just tell Hobby Lobby that yes, you CAN decide to not give out birth control based on "religious" beliefs?
so what if your religious beliefs are that you don't want to bake cakes supporting homosexuality? Would the same thing apply to you then?
More like logos, tag lines, and supporting marketing materials, package design ect.
Typically people don't come to us and say "put this on a tshirt/mug/whatever" we consult and advise then produce whatever we think they should do.
So X company would come to us with an idea or service they want to promote, and we would say "you should totally make a cake with Bert and Ernie on it to promote gay marriage" (except we wouldn't
).Well that is California. But pretty interesting. I'm not sure if we ever said anything or just didn't respond.
Wait what? This is in N. Ireland. Also where does it say they are Catholic?
They keep stating that We are Christians and our Christianity reaches to every point of our lives, whether thats at home or in the day-to-day running of the business,
Where are you reading that they are Catholic?
Here's how I feel
If they company was asked to do a porn cake, they'd be in the right to deny it because that's not based on any fundamental human rights or attributes, religious belief, gender or orientation.
But they were asked to do a couple of puppet characters. Since they already do similar cakes for heterosexual couples they are in the wrong to deny the same service for same-sex couples because what they are being asked to do is to provide the same service they provide for others, and something that is based on a fundamental human attribute.
Ergo, they should have made the cake and should face consequences by failing to do so.
If they company was asked to do a porn cake, they'd be in the right to deny it because that's not based on any fundamental human rights or attributes, religious belief, gender or orientation.
But they were asked to do a couple of puppet characters. Since they already do similar cakes for heterosexual couples they are in the wrong to deny the same service for same-sex couples because what they are being asked to do is to provide the same service they provide for others, and something that is based on a fundamental human attribute.
Ergo, they should have made the cake and should face consequences by failing to do so.
Zoe
Member
- Status