"confederate supporter" is not a protected class and it is totally legal to discriminate against that characteristic of a person
this stuff is not hard to understand
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Court: Baker who refused to make gay wedding cake can't cite beliefs
- Thread starter ElectricBlanketFire
- Start date
- Status
"confederate supporter" is not a protected class and it is totally legal to discriminate against that characteristic of a person
this stuff is not hard to understand
shadowfall
Member
Thanks for clarifying. So technically baker could have refused service by stating any other reason rather than quoting his religious beliefs?
Why would it matter? Because the owner doesn't agree with what it represents, that's why it matters. By virtue of the 1st amendment he wouldn't be obligated to make a gay themed cake. The situation here is that the owner is denying basic service in the event that his cake be used in a gay wedding. They are two distinct scenarios with different viewpoints and arguments for each.
Would he make a rainbow themed cake for a kid's party?
Tough for me, if you consider a baker an artist and cakes as commissioned art pieces, how far can you go?
I don't think you should be able to straight up refuse service, but I also don't think you should be forced to create art you don't agree with on a personal level.
Like I take photos. Not wedding photos thank god. But lets say an anti-abortion group wanted me to take some dead baby photos and mock up some protest signs. I would tell them to fuck off.
I realize that is not a great analogy.
It would be more like a anti-abortion group wanting to buy some generic photos I took and then using them in a way I don't agree with, so I refuse to sell them.
IDK, I think anti-discrimination is needed and necessary for things like housing... but art? Not sure I support the idea that I have to lend my talents to whomever the government deems a protected class.
I don't think you should be able to straight up refuse service, but I also don't think you should be forced to create art you don't agree with on a personal level.
Like I take photos. Not wedding photos thank god. But lets say an anti-abortion group wanted me to take some dead baby photos and mock up some protest signs. I would tell them to fuck off.
I realize that is not a great analogy.
It would be more like a anti-abortion group wanting to buy some generic photos I took and then using them in a way I don't agree with, so I refuse to sell them.
IDK, I think anti-discrimination is needed and necessary for things like housing... but art? Not sure I support the idea that I have to lend my talents to whomever the government deems a protected class.
Because he says he has no problem serving gay people. If he makes wedding cakes, and is willing to serve gay people then it implies that he's willing to sell cakes to gay weddings. Logically, there isn't really any other way to interpret his refusal other than the content of the cake itself. If he truly means he's unwilling to sell wedding cakes to gay couples itself then his statements are contradictory, and as I've already said it would be clearly impermissible because he's holding himself out to the public. The issue then becomes what does he actually mean because you can't both be willing to serve people and then not be willing to sell them cakes when that's what the business is.
User 73706
Banned
Not exactly. If he targeted them as individuals - that is, if he had refused to make a cake on the grounds of them not wanting to pay for the cake or having ultra gay sex in his totally straight masterpiece cake parlor or wearing crop tops despite the very obvious "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign, that'd be different. The problem is that this idiot is doubling down on his statements by excluding potential swaths of a larger demographic; "I won't sell a wedding cake to gays that want to marry" compared to "I won't sell a cake to these two guys specifically that want to marry," etc. Granted, it's a flimsy-ass defense either way and one that won't (and hasn't yet) stood in court, but those private business "refusal of service" signs are mainly in the event that a customer is jeopardizing business, profits, safety, etc.
You can but not based on the sexuality. Just like for example, a company can fire you for indecency which could include shitty behavior to inappropriate clothing, but they can't do shit based on your religion, race etc.
an implication not borne out by the rest of his statements
he specifically does not want to make wedding cakes for gay people
His position is absolutely contradictory. That's the whole point here. That's what the ruling says. He claims that he has no problem serving gay people cupcakes or whatever and is therefore not discriminating, but refuses to provide a wedding cake if the people getting married are gay, which is clearly discriminatory.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
I thought it was going to be like he literally could not cite what in his Christian beliefs actually makes this religiously not okay for him.
I mean, an atheist or Buddhist wedding would be just as much an affront to God's standard for matrimony, and hell, any cake not celebrated in faith would be (Romans 14:23) so I really don't get it. How do they even pull that from their beliefs, not just their ass?
I mean, an atheist or Buddhist wedding would be just as much an affront to God's standard for matrimony, and hell, any cake not celebrated in faith would be (Romans 14:23) so I really don't get it. How do they even pull that from their beliefs, not just their ass?
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Ah, I think I see now...
A plain cake for a heterosexual couple getting married is okay.
A plain cake for a homosexual couple getting married is okay.
A rainbow cake for a heterosexual couple getting married is okay (but pushing it)
A rainbow cake for a homosexual couple getting married...
BREEEEEEE!!!! BREEEEEEEEEE!!!! DOUBLE RAINBOW 1ST AMENDMENT ALARM!!!!
Sorry, no sale.
Just because Bakers sell themed cakes doesn't mean they will make any kind of cake. Can I go to a normal Baker and ask them to make a pornographic cake, sure, can they say no, of course. Because they don't have to make every theme cake.
The same can be said for politically driven themed cakes. If the message they are trying to convey is hateful they can say no because they aren't in the business of making KKK themed cakes.
However if the Bakery is in the business of make WEDDING CAKES and someone asks for a WEDDING CAKE as long as it's in line with every other WEDDING CAKE they have made in the past they cannot deny making it just because the couple is of the same gender. You see, if they provide a service they cannot deny that service to me because the exact same cake that would be made for a straight couple (possibly remarried after a divorce *SIN*) is going to a Gay Wedding.
CoconutTank
Member
Didn't this baker and other bigots end up getting big donations to help them survive and/or pay for legal fees? I don't think relying on the invisible hand to get rid of discrimination is a viable strategy.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
His bigotry was denied, so yes, it was clearly much better in this case, not that I would ever give him any kind of business after this. (and it's cute that you think someone being overtly racist this country is an automatic KO)
I appreciated the ruling comes from a good place but I'm conflicted. The baker shouldn't be allowed to discriminately deny service to gays, but I don't think it's right that they should be forced to compromise their own religious beliefs by baking a themed cake in direct violation of that or suffer the consequences if they don't.
first they remade traditional marriage and now the visible spectrum... the gay agenda must be stopped
shadowfall
Member
That makes sense. Thanks once again. One final question. Just to play devils advocate.
What is the baker was an African American in a racist KKK area and the customers were demanding an cake to celebrate an event? Now the cake by itself might not have any racists symbols and the people buying the cake were dressed in regular clothing but are known racists. Can the African American baker deny the racist customer cake?
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Maybe don't get into the service industry if you don't think you'll be able to serve customers to the best of your ability? That's on you, not the public.
The legal purpose of those are to deny particular people, typically for a particular reason. For example, if a customer is rude or a customer is extremely filthy/smelly, or if the business owner has a particular issue with a particular customer.
Yes. "Racist" is not a protected class.
Ganzlinger
Member
This doesn't make any sense. Selling is okay but making one is not? lol
Homosexual isn't either in most states.
Ryouji Gunblade
Member
Perhaps we need an anti-bigotry amendment.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
The fuck does a cake have to do with religious beliefs? IT'S BAKED GOODS. Come back to reality, please.
Naw, that's bullshit. Everyone had a right to make a living and to pursue their craft. I think baking is as valid an art as any so maybe that's why this don't sit well with me. Non-discrimation towards customers shouldn't carry over 1:1 to what those customers want. If you were to commission an artist to paint a painting that is in direct conflict with their personal beliefs, they shouldn't be penalised by the legal system for declining.
Lots of religious business owners don't sell alcohol or pork because that's against their religious beliefs and society is okay with that. edit; perhaps that's a bad analogy. Probably is. The point I'm getting at is that business owners are allowed to express their religious beliefs through not offering and declining to offer products that go against their creed. The baked goods in this scenario, or rather the theme of it, compromise the baker's religious views and I think they shouldn't be punished for it by the legal system. Is it shitty of them? Yes, but I don't think it should be illegal for them to exercise their freedom of religion by not facilitating beliefs in direct compromise with theirs. Even if I have moral objections.
Right. Which is something that really needs to change.
and once SCOTUS decided that gay people are protected by the equal protection clause that stopped mattering.
this specific aspect of it hasn't been fully tested in court, but that's what this process is. the judge here is saying that constitutionally, the baker cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.
I thought this went through because it is a protected class in Colorado (ditto Oregon).
google tells me sexual orientation is protected in housing and employment but i can't find anything else
i'd assume that it's a general statute though
shadowfall
Member
Thanks for the clarification. I would have initially supported the baker saying that it is his business and he has a right to chose whom to do business with.
But if customers are asking for a regular wedding cake, which he would have given to any other customer and the cake has nothing blasphemous, he has no reasons to deny the service. It is not the same as going to a Vegan restaurant and asking for steak.
If this goes to Supreme Court, the verdict will be a landmark ruling which can help either side.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
Tell me what the Bible says about cake. I'm pretty sure it does have quite a bit to say about gluttony though, so yeah, selling very unhealthy shit like cakes was a just a damn fine career choice for such a fine Christian.
You don't have to agree to understand that scenario violates his religious beliefs and is a 1st amendment issue. A little empathy and understanding for opposing view points is how you construct arguments and debate opposing views. Just letting your ideology take over to the point where you are essentially putting your fingers in your ears going "nah nah nah nah nah" is why it's so hard to have civil discourse, especially on the internet and forums like this. Besides my initial argument and question I posed, which no one has answered yet, is if a gay pride themed cake was denied to a straight couple would it still be discriminatory? My understanding is that most here would think the guy's a piece of shit, but it's within his bounds to not offer that specific style of cake if it violates his religious beliefs.
You wouldn't expect a black bakery owner to be okay serving a confederate themed cake, nor would you expect a Muslim bakery owner to provide a cake with a drawing of Muhammad. It's the same shit. The only difference is that this dude is a white christian and in today's climate it's perfectly okay and safe to shit on what ever beliefs or practices a christian may have. Not that I'm christian or even religious.
Littlefang
Member
If the baker still wants to make cakes without compromising his religious views, he can simply not make any wedding cakes. Alternatively, he could not open up a business to the public.
Ninja Scooter
Member
They aren't being forced to create anything. The discrimination doesn't come from what the cake looks like, but rather who it is being sold to. If they make wedding cakes for straight couples they also have to sell wedding cakes to gay couples. If you are a painter and you make a painting, but refuse to sell it to someone because they are gay, that is discrimination. What the painting is of is not relavent. It doesn't have to be a cake or painting that says "I love gay weddings!"
Basically, the core issue is that if you are a business and you provide a service, you have to provide that service to everyone. If you don't believe in gay marriage so you don't make rainbow flag cakes, whether the customer is straight or gay, that's not discrimination.
it would also violate his religious beliefs to make a cake for a catholic, hindu, muslim, atheist/agnostic, mormon, or any other religious wedding if his standard is "no wedding cakes for weddings i don't personally believe in". he should also refuse to make divorce cakes, cakes for birthday parties if the children's parents are unmarried or divorced, and a million other things.
yet i would wager a lot of money that he would not have had any problem making any of those cakes and probably has in the past.
The baker has the right to bake what they want and serve who they want serve - just like anyone else - so long as they don't discriminate against costumers, which, as far as I know, this baker hasn't done.
So long as they are willing to serve everyone, they should still have the right to deny them goods that go against his religious beliefs.
excelsiorlef
Member
Court disagreed.
Courts can be wrong too, so this doesn't mean much to me.
excelsiorlef
Member
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
I was listening to you up to the point where you, after some confusion, asserted a rainbow cake violates the baker's first amendment rights.
And I am a white Christian.
Littlefang
Member
But the baker has discriminated here. He refused to serve the gay couple a wedding cake when he'd offer that same cake to a straight couple. If he served them a wedding cake that wouldn't go against his beliefs because doing that wouldn't automatically meant that he supported gay marriage. That'd just mean that he made a wedding cake for someone.
Think of it this way, what if the wedding cake was already made and on display in the shop. The guy can't just go "no you can't buy that, it's a wedding cake" to a gay couple interested in purchasing it.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
It's cute he thinks this isn't discriminatory, you know, to refuse to bake a cake because it has some gay pride on it, which in my mind is essentially being against that group of people, their struggles and their long-awaited victories. The baker is a chump celebrating gluttony with his career choice, so a sinner too.
Dyson Industries
Banned
This is the stupidest thing I've read all day. The fact that you're equivocating a flag created explicitly to signify the denial of civil rights and equality to a flag created to celebrate civil rights and equality proves just how out of touch you are. As a white person, you are an embarrassment to me. Stop looking for excuses for your hate. Nobody is listening to that crap any more.
If the baker is willing to serve everyone, he cannot then turn around and deny that service while claiming he's in the right. That is discrimination.
xKilltheMx
Member
So youre gonna ignore it was just a regular fucking wedding cake? All he had to do was make the cake that looked EXACTLY like any other wedding cake.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked