Support NeoGAF

[Zog]

Let me make one thing abundantly clear:

Had the baker been a brown Muslim, the moral quandary some of y'all are experiencing right now wouldn't exist.

Do you think a Muslim would make this cake?

 

[pcostabel]

This is an interesting case. My understanding is that race and religion are protected classes at the federal level, but sexual orientation is not. The suit was based on a state law that protects gays against discrimination. The question is if this law is constitutional or if it violates the freedom of religion of the baker. The baker's lawyers argue that forcing him to make a cake is equivalent of forcing him to endorse gay marriage against his beliefs.
The couple's lawyers argue that religion freedom doesn't allow to violate anti discrimination laws. It effectively boils down to whether cake making is equivalent to speech. One of the Justices asked if the cake was decorated with a message, wouldn't that amount to speech?
I am not sure where I stand on this one, both arguments raise some valid points.
It will probably end up with the Justices voiding the verdict of the lower court based on comments from one of the judges that could be interpreted as biased. This way the state law will stand and no precedent will be set.

 

[Zog]

This is an interesting case. My understanding is that race and religion are protected classes at the federal level, but sexual orientation is not. The suit was based on a state law that protects gays against discrimination. The question is if this law is constitutional or if it violates the freedom of religion of the baker. The baker's lawyers argue that forcing him to make a cake is equivalent of forcing him to endorse gay marriage against his beliefs.
The couple's lawyers argue that religion freedom doesn't allow to violate anti discrimination laws. It effectively boils down to whether cake making is equivalent to speech. One of the Justices asked if the cake was decorated with a message, wouldn't that amount to speech?
I am not sure where I stand on this one, both arguments raise some valid points.
It will probably end up with the Justices voiding the verdict of the lower court based on comments from one of the judges that could be interpreted as biased. This way the state law will stand and no precedent will be set.

I can imagine that I can't force a baker to put 'Happy Fuckin' Birthday You Fat Bastard' on a cake, nor should I.

 

[Osukaa]

Seems like a good way to end up with spit or who knows what else in the cake....i would have just gone to another cake maker.

But I can understand them being bitter but you know....thats religious people for you. A quick complaint to a paper/news channel, tell your story, give him bad press and then the new baker good press.

Legal proceedings for a cake....

I'm sorta on the same page as you. Id be pissed to if I was them but like you said who knows what he would have done to the cake. I guess ill just see where this one goes. Honestly its easy for me to say just let it go but if I had been that couple I may have taken the same route as them. Its hard when it happens to you and it makes you feel like a second class citizen. That Sh*t Hurts. I've had some similar experiences so I can understand the outrage they must be feeling.

 

[Astral Dog]

I can't believe most here are defending the Baker (well i can

It shouldn't be astounding, and it makes sense.

Imagine if it were switched around? What if we were talking about a baker who was gay? For the longest time he's struggled to enjoy the basic freedoms that others have. Now as a grown adult he has that freedom. He has a cake shop, in which he designs cakes specifically for weddings.

Then along comes a couple whom he knows is opposed to gay marriage. Hell maybe even one of them used to bully him. Should he be forced to make a cake for them?

No. Of course not. You would side with him, and rightly so.

You're opposed to this particular baker because you are opposed to his beliefs. But you need to really think beyond that, because even though his views are diametrically opposed to your own, the law is supposed to be catered to a society in which we can live together despite different views, so we don't end up tearing each other apart.

Right now, most people in the internet community lean left . But that's only right now, and there is a shift in the works within the younger generation.

How would you like to live in a community in which most people were right winged, AND everyone was required to sell to any customer who came into their shop? Judging by your vernacular, I'd wager you wouldn't be too keen on that.

But that's what people are setting themselves up for when they can't see past their own noses. Whenever we're talking about adding to or revising the law, we have to ask ourselves HOW it could possibly be abused, and how it could be implemented in a different social climate.

That is why you shouldn't be stunned. You should be supporting the stance of the baker. Not because he deserves it, not because he's right. But because you want to be able to have that freedom yourself.

Are you for real, because being Gay is the same as a bully right.

Anyways, open discrimination like this is a reality yet it shouldn't be commended specially in today's society, just as he had the right to deny them they had the right to sue

 

[A Link to the Past]

What!!? Again this is why this topic is such a heated one and probably shouldn't be discussed on a gaming forum. Mental hoops!? His RELIGION!!!! Prevents him from doing it. In the Catholic/Christian faith marriage is between a man and a woman. That's his belief and thats what he believes in!!!!! He didn't have to jump through any mental hoops to come to any conclusion. He even offered other games etc that aren't wedding cakes. In him making them a wedding cake, he would be participating in something that goes against his religion.

If you went to a Muslim baker and asked them the same thing, because of their religion they would say No as well. If you go to a middle eastern country and attemped this same thing, guess what would happen!!?

No one wants to be discriminated against, but to use your rights to subvert someone into doing something against their religion is also backwards thinking.

I get it, but there are millions of other bakerys out there, they could of went anywhere else when the baker told them his belief.

His religion for not one second suggests that he cannot make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Citing something Sodom and Gomorrah for this would be akin to citing it for anyone. "I can't employ a gay person, it's against my religious beliefs. I can't resuscitate this gay person, it's against my religious beliefs."

 

[Vicetrailia]

You have to side with the couple. If the baker said something like "I don’t make cakes for black weddings.", then he would get fucked legally and morally. This situation is along those lines, there ought to be some protection.

It's not like they made an extra request that he refused. He refused a basic service.

 

[Nephtis]

Had the baker said, I’ll make the cake, but my religious belief doesn’t allow me to draw or depict anything that would indicate its for a gay relationship, but I’ll give you extra icing so you can decorate it, then I’d be on the side of the baker.

But he refused to make the cake at all. So he’s being discriminatory towards the gay couple, and so I side with them.

I hope the Supreme Court agrees.

 

[JordanN]

I can't believe most here are defending the Baker (well i can

I'm not defending the baker. From a business perspective, it just seems dumb to turn away free money like that.

I'm questioning the actual effectiveness of these discrimination laws. Just because the law says you can't openly discriminate, there are a million other ways to skirt such a loophole and then in practice, the law becomes meaningless.

Don't bake a gay cake? What's stopping the guy from just charging $99999 for it instead or literally half-ass baking it so it looks like crap?

It's not the government that's going to make a difference. It's finding another shop that does support baking the cake, gets their money, whereas this guy loses out.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Don't bake a gay cake? What's stopping the guy from just charging $99999 for it instead or literally half-ass baking it so it looks like crap?

It's not the government that's going to make a difference. It's finding another shop that does support baking the cake, gets their money, whereas this guy loses out.

The same thing that stops him from not baking the cake at all. Where we are right now. Charge $99999 and he gets sued.

 

[Blood Borne]

There is nothing false about what I said. Just because it goes against your bigoted agenda doesn't make it false. In the United States, owning a business is a privilege. And if you want to do discriminate based on someone's sexuality, you have to suffer the consequences. Sorry, but not really sorry.

Bigoted agenda?
What did I say that was bigoted?
You just proved my point. People who are against the baker see the case "Christian vs LGBT"

I'm simply saying that this is a violation of human rights. It is fundamentally and morally wrong for me to force a tattoo artist who is Hindu to draw a tattoo on my arm of me slaying a cow.

 

[Vicetrailia]

I'm simply saying that this is a violation of human rights. It is fundamentally and morally wrong for me to force a tattoo artist who is Hindu to draw a tattoo on my arm of me slaying a cow.

That's a different situation entirely, and should be protected.

 

[TheChocoboCadet]

I think many of you are thinking about this case and its repercussions too narrowly. In this example, the gay couple was given a plethora of other places to go. But now imagine being in rural Alabama. Your nearest shop that does wedding cakes is a 17 mile drive. They tell you no. Next nearest place is 38 minutes away, but it's rural Alabama, so they also say no.

Not everyone has a liberal urban center to go to where discrimination isn't tolerated. And those bakeries that turn down the couples in the rural regions aren't going to be punished by a lack of customers. On the contrary, they'd likely lose more business by serving to them. If the gay couple was just asking for a normal wedding cake without anything that would force the baker to make something on it that he could morally object to, then he should have to do it. Otherwise you're opening Pandora's box not just for gay people, but any other discriminated group as well.

With that said, I have no idea what the Constitutional aspect is on this matter, which is what the Supreme Court will be using to make its decision.

 

[Blood Borne]

That's a different situation entirely, and should be protected.

Please kindly explain how it is a different situation?

 

[Vicetrailia]

Please kindly explain how it is a different situation?

Didnt draw the tat for the offensive content. Now if you won't draw tats on females because you are sexist, well, you're open to getting yourself into a lot of trouble.

 

[Blood Borne]

Didnt draw the tat for the offensive content. Now if you won't draw tats on females because you are sexist, well, you're open to getting yourself into a lot of trouble.

I still don't see how it's a different situation.
Didn't the baker refuse to bake the cake because of "offensive content"?

 

[Vicetrailia]

I still don't see how it's a different situation.
Didn't the baker refuse to bake the cake because of "offensive content"?

Because he doesn't like gay people.

 

[Blood Borne]

Because he doesn't like gay people.

Nah. Not at all. Seems like you don't have the whole info.

The gay couple is a frequent customer of theirs. They served the gay couple numerous times. But on this occasion, the gay couple requested the bakers design a wedding cake. The cake was going to have obvious design (content) that it was a gay wedding, hence the bakers refused.

 

[Dude Abides]

Nah. Not at all. Seems like you don't have the whole info.

The gay couple is a frequent customer of theirs. They served the gay couple numerous times. But on this occasion, the gay couple requested the bakers design a wedding cake. The cake was going to have obvious design (content) that it was a gay wedding, hence the bakers refused.

Yeah, no. The guy said he wouldn’t make a cake for a gay wedding. Thery didn’t want a cake with some pro gay marriage message. The details of the design were not discussed. You should check facts before posting about stuff that’s so easy to disprove.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf

I also suspect you’re also inventing this business about them being frequent customers.

 

[Blood Borne]

Yeah, no. The guy said he wouldn’t make a cake for a gay wedding. There’s no reporting that they wanted a cake with some pro gay marriage message. It was a two minute conversation.

I also suspect you’re also inventing this business about them being frequent customers.

Nah. Not at all. Gimme a minute to source the video. They were interviewed on either Fox or NBC.

 

[Dude Abides]

Nah. Not at all. Gimme a minute to source the video. They were interviewed on either Fox or NBC.

I updated with a link to the Colorado court opinion and you’re wrong. Paragraph 3.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf

 

[Blood Borne]

https://youtu.be/NwDT-lKCeew

Here it is.

Apologies if it's another case.

 

[Blood Borne]

I updated with a link to the Colorado court opinion and you’re wrong. Paragraph 3.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf

Oh it's another case.
Mea culpa.

Nevertheless, I'm still steadfast on my opinion. They should not be forced to do anything that violates their religious beliefs.

 

[Big Blue]

Please kindly explain how it is a different situation?

You really are slow, if a tattoo artist determines that he won't ink ANYONE because of his beliefs that's not discrimination as everyone is being treated equally. He's not refusing service to any particular protected class. He's refusing it to everyone. I can't believe you don't get this. Of course, you don't even know the details of the case, you don't know the definition of discrimination and yet you decide to continue to look ridiculous in these debates.

 

[Dude Abides]

Oh it's another case.
Mea culpa.

Nevertheless, I'm still steadfast on my opinion. They should not be forced to do anything that violates their religious beliefs.

What if someone’s religious beliefs are that adult men should marry 12 year old girls. Should they be exempt from the law as well?

 

[CampbellzSoup]

What if someone’s religious beliefs are that adult men should marry 12 year old girls. Should they be exempt from the law as well?

Address the topic at hand not some made up shit.

 

[RastaMentality]

Address the topic at hand not some made up shit.

It's not made up. Some interpretations of Islam permit this.

So do you think that adult Muslim men marrying 12 year old girls should be exempt from the law on religious grounds?

 

[Big Blue]

Address the topic at hand not some made up shit.

It's a hypothetical providing reason why the freedom of religion is not absolute. Hence why Sharia law does not exist in the US.

 

[Dude Abides]

Address the topic at hand not some made up shit.

Analogies how do they work.

Also I'm surprised a Trumper wouldn’t understand the Islam angle.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

What if someone’s religious beliefs are that adult men should marry 12 year old girls. Should they be exempt from the law as well?

This is a good point.

We have freedom of religion and anti-discriminatory laws against religion, but religion has parts of it that are inherently discriminatory. So it's a bind.

But it's a bind where we should say; We choose peoples rights over religious freedoms. Religions are man made systems. We have a separation of church and state and that is important. Because matters of the spiritual is often disassociated from the matters of ordinary life and governance.
If the baker is truly pious and does not have evil in his heart towards gay people, I sympathize, but we do not want to entertain a slippery slope where ANY type of person is expelled from service, commerce, law or any form of attendance.

Society cannot not be oppressive. We cannot have a society where some people some of the time cannot feel a little oppressed. But in the case of religion, religion as a form of government policy tool has in the past caused a great deal of people oppression. So I don't think concessions of this manner are valid.

Being married is not just not a christian thing. Or even a religious thing. It's a cultural ceremony that we in our time engage in for symbolic reasons as well as practical. I think the bakers faith should allow him to wrestle himself into a corner where he can make his wedding cake in good faith.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Oh it's another case.
Mea culpa.

Nevertheless, I'm still steadfast on my opinion. They should not be forced to do anything that violates their religious beliefs.

When it comes to race, gender, etc, etc,they must. They asked for a basic service and were denied because of their orientation. That shouldn't fly.

 

[Blood Borne]

When it comes to race, gender, etc, etc,they must. They asked for a basic service and were denied because of their orientation. That shouldn't fly.

No. They MUSTN'T. That's some totalitarian bullshit. Nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to, especially if it violates their human rights. Threatening someone with jail or death because they refused to transact with someone is slavery/gulag.

What if someone’s religious beliefs are that adult men should marry 12 year old girls. Should they be exempt from the law as well?

Typical leftist. Always devolves into emotions and strawman. And to answer your ridiculous analogy, a 12 years old isn't mature enough to make such a decision, so in other words, the adult man is forcing/coercing the 12 year old and that is a no no.

Also, I like how you didn't comment on the video I posted.

You really are slow, if a tattoo artist determines that he won't ink ANYONE because of his beliefs that's not discrimination as everyone is being treated equally. He's not refusing service to any particular protected class. He's refusing it to everyone. I can't believe you don't get this. Of course, you don't even know the details of the case, you don't know the definition of discrimination and yet you decide to continue to look ridiculous in these debates.

Protected class?
You leftists sure do love putting people in groups. You never see people as individuals. Some collective marxist bullshit.

There's nothing wrong with discrimination in lots of businesses. An all girls school discriminates boys from admission. A Catholic school discriminates muslims from admissions and vice versa.

Lots of Muslim men don't shake or greet women, yet I don't see any outrage about protected class. You can't force a Christian funeral director to provide service for a Muslim ceremony and vice versa.

Protected class bullshit is just semantics. The crux of the case is that it violates the person's religious beliefs, therefore they shouldn't be forced to do anything against their will.

This case is an insidious attack on religious rights. Religion is antithetic to leftist ideology. It's why most leftists are atheists.

 

[Dude Abides]

Typical leftist. Always devolves into emotions and strawman. And to answer your ridiculous analogy, a 12 years old isn't mature enough to make such a decision, so in other words, the adult man is forcing/coercing the 12 year old and that is a no no.

Also, I like how you didn't comment on the video I posted.

Gets proved wrong, resorts to insults. Also doesn’t know what strawman means. How child-like and emotionallly-driven. Thanks for conceding you don’t care if the state interferes with a religious practice as long as you personally don’t like the religion. Clealy your views about this case are driven by your feelings, and that’s why you’re angry and lashing out at everyone.

Why would i comment on your dumb video that has nothing to do with this case.

 

[Blood Borne]

Gets proved wrong, resorts to insults. Also doesn’t know what strawman means. How child-like and emotionallly-driven. Thanks for conceding you don’t care if the state interferes with a religious practice as long as you personally don’t like the religion. Clealy your views about this case are driven by your feelings, and that’s why you’re angry and lashing out at everyone.

Why would i comment on your dumb video that has nothing to do with this case.

The video is about a case very similar to this.

Also I didn't concede about government interfering in the same way about the case.
An adult man forcing/coercing a 12 year old is violating the girl's freedom. It's no different from physical assault. Totally different from the case. Your reading comprehension is questionable

 

[Dunki]

For people who are saying its not ok. I can totally get where you are coming from. But let me ask you this. What about someone who wears a swastika while trying to buy something? Would people here refuse this person to serve?

And yes it is exactly the same and that is why I think shop owners should be allowed to do this. In the end the public will judge this shop based on this. If he can survive fine but most likely he will bot or will suffer a heavy loss because of it.

 

[Blood Borne]

For people who are saying its not ok. I can totally get where you are coming from. But let me ask you this. What about someone who wears a swastika while trying to buy something? Would people here refuse this person to serve?

And yes it is exactly the same and that is why I think shop owners should be allowed to do this. In the end the public will judge this shop based on this. If he can survive fine but most likely he will bot or will suffer a heavy loss because of it.

I've seen stories about people refusing service for people wearing MAGA hats, yet there was no outrage.

Government shouldn't compel people to do anything that violates their religious beliefs and human rights.

 

[WinterIsComing]

You know that there are human rights on both sides of the story, right?

 

[Blood Borne]

You know that there are human rights on both sides of the story, right?

Please explain.
Because I don't see how it is a human right for me to be served by someone.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Oh it's another case.
Mea culpa.

Nevertheless, I'm still steadfast on my opinion. They should not be forced to do anything that violates their religious beliefs.

Can you cite the religious belief that bars him from making a cake for a gay couple?

 

[Dunki]

Can you cite the religious belief that bars him from making a cake for a gay couple?

You could argue that gay people are not recognized in the bible and it only speaks of man and woman. And yes it is stupid. But what about a Muslim and lets say Alcohol? We had such a case at some airline. She was fired because she did not want to server alcohol and people were really outraged about this. So that is why there should not be a case by case base. Either you for or against this. But deciding on your own feelings is not a valid conclusion IMO.

Its basically the same.

 

[farmerboy]

Please explain.
Because I don't see how it is a human right for me to be served by someone.

Correct. Somewhere along the line the boundary of discrimination was moved so that freedom of choice was eroded for the rest.

Who decides which discrimination we allow? The baker simply decided that he wanted no part of the transaction. It was not done forcibly, with hatred or anger. But to now force him to comply is some totalitarian shit and wrong.

Where does it end? Most social interaction/choice results in discrimination. Where shall we draw the line?

Draw it here and we've gone too far.

 

[Chuckie]

You could argue that gay people are not recognized in the bible and it only speaks of man and woman. And yes it is stupid. But what about a Muslim and lets say Alcohol? We had such a case at some airline. She was fired because she did not want to server alcohol and people were really outraged about this. So that is why there should not be a case by case base. Either you for or against this. But deciding on your own feelings is not a valid conclusion IMO.

Its basically the same.

The stewardess got permission from a supervisor to have the alcohol served by another stewardess though. I mean I still think it is ridiculous, but the client still gets their service.

You could compare the cases if an employe of the bakery would say: I am not permitted by my religion to make wedding cakes for gay couples (is that in the bible btw?) but here is another employee who would love to bake you a wedding cake.

 

[Dunki]

The stewardess got permission from a supervisor to have the alcohol served by another stewardess though. I mean I still think it is ridiculous, but the client still gets their service.

You could compare the cases if an employe of the bakery would say: I am not permitted by my religion to make wedding cakes for gay couples (is that in the bible btw?) but here is another employee who would love to bake you a wedding cake.

But this also could be solved by going to another bakery. It is a different thing in an Airplane or if this as the only bakery in town IMO. Besides do we even know if this bakery had another employee? I think it was a small bakery or?

 

[WinterIsComing]

Please explain.
Because I don't see how it is a human right for me to be served by someone.

I'm not 100% on either side on this matter, seems like a complex subject to go all in on one side. Both have valid claims, that's why I said there are human rights on both ends.

On one hand, the baker shouldn't be forced to do something he doesn't want to, but on the other hand the couple shouldn't be discriminated. But it does seem kinda silly on the baker's side to bring all this negative attention to his business only because of a simple cake, specially in this day and age.

If the supreme decides in favor of the baker, anyone can refuse their services based on anything they want. Basically a Soup Nazi, cake version.
If they decide in favor of the couple, which in my point of view is the right thing to do, it means that no business should be able to discriminate based on anything, which leads us to some examples already given earlier in the thread, like girls only schools descriminating boys, etc.

 

[Dunki]

I'm not 100% on either side on this matter, seems like a complex subject to go all in on one side. Both have valid claims, that's why I said there are human rights on both ends.

On one hand, the baker shouldn't be forced to do something he doesn't want to, but on the other hand the couple shouldn't be discriminated. But it does seem kinda silly on the baker's side to bring all this negative attention to his business only because of a simple cake, specially in this day and age.

If the supreme decides in favor of the baker, anyone can refuse their services based on anything they want. Basically a Soup Nazi, cake version.
If they decide in favor of the couple, which in my point of view is the right thing to do, it means that no business should be able to discriminate based on anything, which leads us to some examples already given earlier in the thread, like girls only schools descriminating boys, etc.

Then I will wonder what happens with places like a woman shelter. Do they have to accept man who were abused as well? Since there are basically none for men this would a pretty good thing to be honest. They just need tos separate them which leads to more costs for Shelter.

 

[Chuckie]

But this also could be solved by going to another bakery. It is a different thing in an Airplane or if this as the only bakery in town IMO. Besides do we even know if this bakery had another employee? I think it was a small bakery or?

Yeah it was merely an example.

Personally I think this case is rather difficult on a technical level, because he refuses to sell a certain product, not refuse to sell all products.

Is it possible in the US to for instance refuse an interracial couple? Saying: I won't bake you guys a wedding cake, but you can have a nice birthday cake.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

I'm with the baker on this one. He is entitled to his beliefs and has the right to do business with who he chooses.

Taking the 'case' to court is just lol. Find some real dragons to slay for once instead of wasting everyones time. Not that I wouldn't be annoyed as the gay dudes but Jeez, just go to another shop to buy your damn cake. Do you really want the fundie Christian making it anyway?

This just seems like kicking up a fuss 'because we can'. Get a life.

 

[Airola]

Can you cite the religious belief that bars him from making a cake for a gay couple?

Biblical marriage is about a holy communion between a male and a female, who then become one by marriage. It is not about just two persons becoming one. It is not about two people in love wanting to make their love official by a priest. It is about a male and a female becoming one. You can call it old fashioned or whatever else, but that is how it is. To change that you would have to change the Bible.

So if the baker is religious enough to think that he is supposed to be part of making this holy communion happen and that his cake is supposed to be symbolical part of it, then I understand very well if he doesn't want to be part of it that way.

I wonder if the baker would've had any issue with baking a cake for a not-religious ceremony by gay people. I mean, he offered to make another types of cakes to them.

 

[Big Blue]

Yeah it was merely an example.

Personally I think this case is rather difficult on a technical level, because he refuses to sell a certain product, not refuse to sell all products.

Is it possible in the US to for instance refuse an interracial couple? Saying: I won't bake you guys a wedding cake, but you can have a nice birthday cake.

No it's illegal. It's discrimination.

 

[Big Blue]

Please explain.
Because I don't see how it is a human right for me to be served by someone.

You're not smart. It's a human rights to be SERVED THE SAME AE EVERYONE. Equality is indeed a human right as defined in the 14th amendment. Did you go to school???