Support NeoGAF

[Alebrije]

I am on the baker's side. You ca not for someone to do something he does not wants to do, there were not money involved or contract. The couple just needed to look for a baker willing to make thier cake.

 

[Fnord]

I don't have a faith. But I am cognizant enough to understand that everyone is not me. I understand that if the law says I can't do a thing, and I do that thing I shouldn't be surprised that there are repercussions.

Seems the baker understands that he cannot violate that law which is why he no longer sells wedding cakes. Which also seems to be why he's pursuing this case under the guise that it is violating his first amendment rights... somehow.

Spoiler

Cakes are speech, apparently.

While cakes could probably be interpreted as speech in some scenarios, I'd imagine he's using the freedom of religion aspect of the First Amendment.

 

[Fnord]

What if it were a couple trying to buy a wedding cake for a Nazi-themed wedding?

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

I am on the baker's side. You ca not for someone to do something he does not wants to do, there were not money involved or contract.

So far, the law (and those who uphold it) have said you are incorrect. The moral of this story is, don't offer a service you aren't willing to fulfill for everyone. It's really that simple.

 

[Dunki]

So far, the law (and those who uphold it) have said you are incorrect. The moral of this story is, don't offer a service you aren't willing to fulfill for everyone. It's really that simple.

Like the case with the Muslim Stewardess who lost her job for not wanting to serve alcohol and who got a ton of support from old gaf? Even attacked the people agreeing with her being fired.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

While cakes could probably be interpreted as speech in some scenarios, I'd imagine he's using the freedom of religion aspect of the First Amendment.

"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order." In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances." In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute.

Like the case with the Muslim Stewardess who lost her job for not wanting to serve alcohol and who got a ton of support from old gaf? Even attacked the people agreeing with her being fired.

In this case, she isn't offering a service, her employer is. If she is unwilling or unable to fulfill her duties as an employee her termination is a given. If she understood that serving alcohol was a condition of her employment and refused to do so, why keep her as an employee? Seems silly. I get the feeling you might be leaving something out though.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

I am on the baker's side. You ca not for someone to do something he does not wants to do, there were not money involved or contract. The couple just needed to look for a baker willing to make thier cake.

An interracial heterosexual couple walks in the door asking for a standard wedding cake. Baker says, "Nope, my religion says I should not stand for race mixing. So, no cake for you."

Funny enough, this exact scenario used to happen all the time before it was made illegal to discriminate based on race, regardless of what your religion may or may not say about it.

 

[Big Blue]

What if it were a couple trying to buy a wedding cake for a Nazi-themed wedding?

Can we have a stick for what a protected class is?

 

[quickwhips]

Baker has no right to refuse a couple gay or straight.

 

[cereal_killerxx]

As a christian, do you support legislating your religious tenets on those who don't share your beliefs?

What about being tolerant and respectful of Philips' Christian beliefs or does his first amendment constitutional right to freedom of religion suddenly mean nothing? Once again, that couple could have easily went to a different bakery.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

What about being tolerant and respectful of Philips' Christian beliefs

Why would you tolerate something that infringes on your rights?

or does his first amendment constitutional right to freedom of religion suddenly mean nothing?

He cannot exercise his rights to infringe on the rights of others.

Once again, that couple could have easily went to a different bakery.

Are you saying the gays are wrong for exercising their rights as a protected class?

 

[cereal_killerxx]

Why would you tolerate something that infringes on your rights?



He cannot exercise his rights to infringe on the rights of others.



Are you saying the gays are wrong for exercising their rights as a protected class?

I would ask then where you would draw the line with this sort of issue. Say that same couple decided they wanted to get married in a church that believes that homosexuality is a sin. The pastor/priest refuses to wed them. What happens then? At what point are the gay couple infringing upon the 1st amendment rights of Christians? Or do LGBT rights always trump other rights? Perhaps the pastor/priest should be asked to pay a fine? Or arrested even? (Not interested in starting a fight here. Just genuinely interested in hearing other opinions about this.)

 

[Naudi]

The baker either needs to find a job that doesn't require him to go against his faith. Or move somewhere more bigoted than the US where he can gay bash till his hearts content.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

I would ask then where you would draw the line with this sort of issue.

Depends on the issue, I guess.

Say that same couple decided they wanted to get married in a church that believes that homosexuality is a sin. The pastor/priest refuses to wed them. What happens then? Perhaps the pastor/priest should be asked to pay a fine? Or arrested even? (Not interested in starting a fight here. Just genuinely interested in hearing other opinions about this.)

Despite evidence to the contrary, churches aren't a business. It would be illogical to expect "service" from an institution that is openly hostile to you. Whereas one should not expect to not be able to buy a cake from a cake maker because of "reasons." If you don't sell wedding cakes, cool. If you don't sell wedding cakes to gays, not cool. He did the correct thing and stopped selling wedding cakes altogether.

At what point are the gay couple infringing upon the 1st amendment rights of Christians?

I would assume when a gay couple denies a service based on someone elses religion.

Or do LGBT rights always trump other rights?

/shrug.

 

[mckmas8808]

We are not talking about something that glorifies a belief. We are talking about a cake. You really think it would be a good thing if a Muslim shoemaker could refuse to serve a priest because he didn't want his shoes to be worn at a mass?

Actually yes because they would ruin their own shop. The image loss these days would be a total disaster. We do not live in the times in which such acts were encouraged.

But I also someone who rarely would use the law and instead that every action will cause a reaction and in these cases it would be a huge hit on the financial site.

We actually still do live in those times in some places in the country. So stop just to spread that lie that racist is over.

 

[mckmas8808]

I've been doing some more reading on this and man, like I said in the first few pages, this is not an easy debate. I'm religious as well so it makes this such a tough decision. In my prior jobs I've worked with several people are openly gay and have become friends with them. Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with their character and who they are as people.

Yet at the same time, the issue of marriage in the Christain religion is between a man and a woman. This baker baking them a wedding game is him participating in something his religion forbids. The baker did offer the couple other types of cakes that aren't bond to marriage though but clearly they were there for a wedding cake.

It's a tough one because by law he is discriminating against them, yet his reasoning is also protected by the same law isn't it?

Personally, to me: because he showed no malice and offered them different types of cakes and even suggested other bakeries that would happily bake this couple a cake, I don't see him as being at fault. This is again my personal opinion, now if he was tossing our slurs and yelling at them to leave his bakery because of their sexual orientation, that would be crossing the line.

Regardless of what side the supreme court lands on, it's going to affect a lot of people. Clearly not an easy decision.

Now use your same logic, but instead of a Baker make the person a LandLord that owed property. Would you feel the same way if the LandLord said they couldn't rent one of his properties because they were married, but was okay to suggest some other properties?

Do you support legislation that forces you to do things against your faith?

Lets be real here. Making cakes for wedding for a gay couple is not against his faith. No need to make things up.

 

[VAL0R]

The baker is right to fight.

When viewed through the lens of Christianity there is no such a thing as a "homosexual marriage." Homosexual acts have always been seen as seriously sinful by Christians, for thousands of years. Aside from some very recent and relatively few dissenters, this is a historically unanimous view among the Christian scriptures, the Fathers, the theologians, the philosophers,etc. Christians, taken as a whole, see this as a blasphemous, sacrilegious mockery of the holy institution of sacramental marriage. You may not like this view. But it is their view and they have the freedom to believe it.

If you take away a Christian's freedom of conscience in such an oppressive way and force them to violate their consciences by making a product that is, essentially sacrilegious in their eyes, Christians will lose their jobs and even their lives before they are willing to do so. If Christians must lose their livelihoods for consistently practicing their ancient faith and must be punished with fines and imprisonment for doing so, it cannot be said with a straight face that this country has religious freedom anymore.

Also remember that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country are people who self describe as Christians. This isn't some little spaghetti monster cult. This is the greatest monotheistic religion in the history of the world. If Christians are not free to exercise their faith, you don't have freedom of religion. Period.

 

[farmerboy]

Baker has no right to refuse a couple gay or straight.

I think the baker has every right to withdraw from an interaction he feels he has nothing to add to.

I absolutely believe that discrimination is quite seperate from not agreeing with someones actions, beliefs or lifestyle. And if you do not agree you cannot nor should not be forced or coerced to interact.

He is not actively trying to intimidate, harrass or change what they're doing. He's respectfully excercising his personal right and freedom to partake in the interactions he wants to.

Forcing him to do so is not freedom.

And you cant extend someone else's freedom by curtailing anothers.

 

[Blood Borne]

Isn't it amazing and also inconsistent that in my private home, I can discriminate whomever I want. I can even put on a sign that says "no race x people allowed" or "no religious x people allowed". But as soon as I start selling selling lemonades, government will tell me take out that sign.

My question is my home and business really private?

 

[Shamylov]

The baker is right to fight.

When viewed through the lens of Christianity there is no such a thing as a "homosexual marriage." Homosexual acts have always been seen as seriously sinful by Christians, for thousands of years. Aside from some very recent and relatively few dissenters, this is a historically unanimous view among the Christian scriptures, the Fathers, the theologians, the philosophers,etc. Christians, taken as a whole, see this as a blasphemous, sacrilegious mockery of the holy institution of sacramental marriage. You may not like this view. But it is their view and they have the freedom to believe it.

If you take away a Christian's freedom of conscience in such an oppressive way and force them to violate their consciences by making a product that is, essentially sacrilegious in their eyes, Christians will lose their jobs and even their lives before they are willing to do so. If Christians must lose their livelihoods for consistently practicing their ancient faith and must be punished with fines and imprisonment for doing so, it cannot be said with a straight face that this country has religious freedom anymore.

Also remember that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country are people who self describe as Christians. This isn't some little spaghetti monster cult. This is the greatest monotheistic religion in the history of the world. If Christians are not free to exercise their faith, you don't have freedom of religion. Period.

I keep seeing the religious reasoning for why the baker is refusing to provide a service. This reasoning is irrelevant to the case because the court is not going to decide based on it. It just comes down to the baker refusing for a religious reason; no need to keep reminding us all the background on Christianity and whatever else, we know and don't really care.

The main issue is that he feels he's being forced to do something against his will. But we need to dissect what exactly he is being forced to do. There are two components to the request he is asked to perform:

The first one is to simply bake a cake. This shouldn't be a problem for him since he opened up his business with the purpose of providing this service. This is not the "something he doesn't want to do" because that's exactly why he got into the business.

The second (and most important) component is that he wants to be allowed to operate his business and discriminate based on the customers' sexual orientation. It doesn't matter that he is allowing the couple to buy other cakes; he is refusing to make a specific cake because it relates directly to their sexual orientation.

As has been explained already by Robido, religious beliefs are not (and should not) be allowed to go above the law, specially in the case of discrimination against a protected class. If you want to argue that sexual orientation shouldn't be a protected class then that's also a tired old argument and we are looking for more compelling reasons to allow the baker to discriminate.

Thanks Robido for bringing up the legal precedents regarding religious beliefs, very much appreciated.

 

[Nester99]

Isn't it amazing and also inconsistent that in my private home, I can discriminate whomever I want. I can even put on a sign that says "no race x people allowed" or "no religious x people allowed". But as soon as I start selling selling lemonades, government will tell me take out that sign.

My question is my home and business really private?

Your business is no longer "private" in the sense you are referring too when you actively invite the public in.

Your duty of care and responsibility changes dramatically once you invite the public in for commerce.

 

[HStallion]

The baker is right to fight.

When viewed through the lens of Christianity there is no such a thing as a "homosexual marriage." Homosexual acts have always been seen as seriously sinful by Christians, for thousands of years. Aside from some very recent and relatively few dissenters, this is a historically unanimous view among the Christian scriptures, the Fathers, the theologians, the philosophers,etc. Christians, taken as a whole, see this as a blasphemous, sacrilegious mockery of the holy institution of sacramental marriage. You may not like this view. But it is their view and they have the freedom to believe it.

If you take away a Christian's freedom of conscience in such an oppressive way and force them to violate their consciences by making a product that is, essentially sacrilegious in their eyes, Christians will lose their jobs and even their lives before they are willing to do so. If Christians must lose their livelihoods for consistently practicing their ancient faith and must be punished with fines and imprisonment for doing so, it cannot be said with a straight face that this country has religious freedom anymore.

Also remember that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country are people who self describe as Christians. This isn't some little spaghetti monster cult. This is the greatest monotheistic religion in the history of the world. If Christians are not free to exercise their faith, you don't have freedom of religion. Period.

This would all matter if the Supreme court was actually concerned about deciding this case on religious grounds.

 

[Dude Abides]

A sacreligious cake. Now I've heard everything.

 

[Shamylov]

I think the baker has every right to withdraw from an interaction he feels he has nothing to add to.

I absolutely believe that discrimination is quite seperate from not agreeing with someones actions, beliefs or lifestyle. And if you do not agree you cannot nor should not be forced or coerced to interact.

He is not actively trying to intimidate, harrass or change what they're doing. He's respectfully excercising his personal right and freedom to partake in the interactions he wants to.

Forcing him to do so is not freedom.

And you cant extend someone else's freedom by curtailing anothers.

The baker's actions and beliefs are very much not separate from discrimination. He is asked to perform a service and provide a product that is within the purpose of his business. His reason for denying the couple's request is because he is regarding their union as different from that of a heterosexual or different-sex couple and treating it as such based solely on sexual orientation. This is textbook discrimination.

The freedom the baker wants is to go above the law that protects the couple.

 

[farmerboy]

The baker's actions and beliefs are very much not separate from discrimination. He is asked to perform a service and provide a product that is within the purpose of his business. His reason for denying the couple's request is because he is regarding their union as different from that of a heterosexual or different-sex couple and treating it as such based solely on sexual orientation. This is textbook discrimination.

The freedom the baker wants is to go above the law that protects the couple.

For me the distinction lies in that none of what he is doing is an "engagement". He is "withdrawing" from an interaction he rather have no part of. I think its an important distinction, otherwise at what point are we allowed to say "no thanks".

 

[mckmas8808]

For me the distinction lies in that none of what he is doing is an "engagement". He is "withdrawing" from an interaction he rather have no part of. I think its an important distinction, otherwise at what point are we allowed to say "no thanks".

He eventually said no thanks when he stopped making wedding cakes all together.

 

[Shamylov]

For me the distinction lies in that none of what he is doing is an "engagement". He is "withdrawing" from an interaction he rather have no part of. I think its an important distinction, otherwise at what point are we allowed to say "no thanks".

I have no idea why this distinction would matter or how it would make a difference. The baker could also "withdraw from an interaction" wherein a member of a protected class is seeking to rent a home from him, but this is illegal discrimination as well.

Also, the points at which he's allowed to say "no thanks" are actually many. He just has to steer clear of the ones protected under the constitution.

 

[CGwizz]

Just go to another cake shop ?

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

Just go to another cake shop ?

Or just don't break the law.

 

[farmerboy]

Or just don't break the law.

Well then whilst the intention and purpose of the law is neccessary and just, I think its application in this matter is, at best, misguided.

 

[Night Angel]

Well then whilst the intention and purpose of the law is neccessary and just, I think its application in this matter is, at best, misguided.

Yeah, we need to be more selective in how we protect disadvantaged/marginalized groups.

Spoiler

*eyeroll

 

[Shamylov]

Well then whilst the intention and purpose of the law is neccessary and just, I think its application in this matter is, at best, misguided.

Misguided how?

Business wants to discriminate based on sexual orientation. This is the exact application that the law is meant for.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

Misguided how?

Business wants to discriminate based on sexual orientation. This is the exact application that the law is meant for.

It’s not discrimination he doesn’t mind serving them as individuals who are gay he doesn’t believe any unity between two men due to his feet however a couple can buy any other cake they want it’s not their sexuality it’s the purpose of the cake at the side for that breaks his faith you can’t force people to break their faith.

 

[7echnicolor]

Well then whilst the intention and purpose of the law is neccessary and just, I think its application in this matter is, at best, misguided.

So how bad does an interaction have to be for you to think that application of the law is correct?

 

[Night Angel]

It’s not discrimination he doesn’t mind serving them as individuals who are gay he doesn’t believe any unity between two men due to his feet however a couple can buy any other cake they want it’s not their sexuality it’s the purpose of the cake at the side for that breaks his faith you can’t force people to break their faith.

"I sell wedding cakes to anyone but the gays."

That doesn't sound like discrimination based on their sexuality?

What if his religion didn't allow interracial marriage? Would he, in your mind, be right to send off said interracial couple empty-handed?

America has already solved this problem. The law of the land overrides tenets of religion because not everyone shares a religion.

 

[FStubbs]

I wonder where the boundary is, though. Can you force them to say anything?

Like going into a shop owned by an African American and asking for a cake with a confederate flag on it that says "ROBERT E LEE MY HERO"

 

[Night Angel]

I wonder where the boundary is, though. Can you force them to say anything?

Like going into a shop owned by an African American and asking for a cake with a confederate flag on it that says "ROBERT E LEE MY HERO"

Say it with me.

Protected. Class.

 

[7echnicolor]

I wonder where the boundary is, though. Can you force them to say anything?

Like going into a shop owned by an African American and asking for a cake with a confederate flag on it that says "ROBERT E LEE MY HERO"

Are confederate supporters a protected class? &#129300;

 

[Big Blue]

It's not discrimination he doesn't mind serving them as individuals who are gay he doesn't believe any unity between two men due to his feet however a couple can buy any other cake they want it's not their sexuality it's the purpose of the cake at the side for that breaks his faith you can't force people to break their faith.

How would baking a wedding cake break his faith?? That's beyond absurd.

 

[farmerboy]

Misguided how?.

Are the gay couple;

free to associate? Yes.
free to marry? Yes.
free to work? Yes.
free to purchase goods and services? Yes.

So the law is working as intended.

In this case, an individual decided that his religious beliefs made it uncomfortable for him to provide the service requested. Did he;

boycott their marriage? No.
protest the ceremony? No.
solicit other businesses not to serve them? No.
intimidate them? No.
harass them? No.

So the law is working as intended.

Society creates law. When law creates society by governing our interactions, the end results are very bad. That is why I think it is misguided.

 

[Big Blue]

Are the gay couple;

free to associate? Yes.
free to marry? Yes.
free to work? Yes.
free to purchase goods and services? Yes.

So the law is working as intended.

In this case, an individual decided that his religious beliefs made it uncomfortable for him to provide the service requested. Did he;

boycott their marriage? No.
protest the ceremony? No.
solicit other businesses not to serve them? No.
intimidate them? No.
harass them? No.

So the law is working as intended.

Society creates law. When law creates society by governing our interactions, the end results are very bad. That is why I think it is misguided.

It's called equality. The gay couple were not allowed to purchase the same goods and services as straight people simple because they were not heterosexual. Segregation would also check all of those points.

 

[farmerboy]

It's called equality. The gay couple were not allowed to purchase the same goods and services as straight people simple because they were not heterosexual. Segregation would also check all of those points.

Segregation by its very nature intimidated and harassed. So no I do not agree on that point.

 

[Big Blue]

Segregation by its very nature intimidated and harassed. So no I do not agree on that point.

So you're saying it the business owner was nice about, segregation would be ok? I'm sure there were very nice men in the 60s who wouldn't serve to black people. You don't have to act like an asshole to oppress

 

[farmerboy]

So you're saying it the business owner was nice about, segregation would be ok? I'm sure there were very nice men in the 60s who wouldn't serve to black people. You don't have to act like an asshole to oppress

I hardly think not baking a cake is oppression.

All of this is a very interesting conversation. Its not really a question of discrimination, but where the line is drawn.

This gay couple has all the same fundamental rights I do. And so they should. I just think that an individual should be able to say "I dont want to be part of this".

Is that really so wrong?

 

[CampbellzSoup]

So you're saying it the business owner was nice about, segregation would be ok? I'm sure there were very nice men in the 60s who wouldn't serve to black people. You don't have to act like an asshole to oppress

No one is not serving them, stop conflating issues. They can purchase anything they’d like in the store.

The owner does not make cakes that violate his faith.

 

[Big Blue]

I hardly think not baking a cake is oppression.

All of this is a very interesting conversation. Its not really a question of discrimination, but where the line is drawn.

This gay couple has all the same fundamental rights I do. And so they should. I just think that an individual should be able to say "I dont want to be part of this".

Is that really so wrong?

The Constitution says that being treated equally by a place of business is a fundamental right.

 

[Big Blue]

No one is not serving them, stop conflating issues. They can purchase anything they'd like in the store.

The owner does not make cakes that violate his faith.

The baker refused to makes a cake for a couple because they were gay. This violates the Constitution. Stop making semantics to defend discrimination. I'm going to assume you're not a minority.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

The baker refused to makes a cake for a couple because they were gay. That violates the Constitution. Stop making semantics to defend discrimination.

Holy shit no he didn’t. They can buy birthday cakes, promotion cakes, and others his religion doesn’t recognize same sex marriage. I don’t think your understanding that they can buy anything in his store that doesn’t violate his faith.

He didn’t say gay people can’t buy anything in my store, however due to my faith I can’t bake this particular cake for you.

 

[Big Blue]

Holy shit no he didn't. They can buy birthday cakes, promotion cakes, and others his religion doesn't recognize same sex marriage. I don't think your understanding that they can buy anything in his store that doesn't violate his faith.

He didn't say gay people can't buy anything in my store, however due to my faith I can't bake this particular cake for you.

Which is unconstitutional. Holy shit did you pay attention in civics class? He cannot offer a service to a straight couple and refuse to the same thing for a gay couple strictly because they are gay. DO you know what the word equality means???

 

[farmerboy]

The Constitution says that being treated equally by a place of business is a fundamental right.

Fair enough. Then I applaud the bakers decision to stop making wedding cakes.

I suppose then, that the supreme court will have a tough time considering that right against the religious freedom right.