On Topic Discussion So, should the baker be legally compelled to make the gay wedding cake? (US Supreme Court)

[LeicsDom]

Every establishment has the right to refuse service, usually for unruly customers who are chasing away other customers. But when blatant discrimination is the reason, that should be clearly expressed on the door or in the window before the 'unwanted' even cross over the threshold. That way, those religious people who do not share the stores' beliefs can chose to take their business elsewhere as well. There are a lot of religious people out there who actually like us.

Of course you have to wonder why they said they wouldn't make it because it was contrary to their religious beliefs.
Why not just say they can't do it on time due to workload. That way no-one is offended and they are not in trouble. Because, of course, they must know that by discriminating they are breaking the law. I sense deliberate martyrdom here

 

[ragerade]

First step: let’s identify the issue. I’m sure nobody sane would have an issue with a private citizen or non-profit organisation (churches) opting to not be involved in a wedding they do not see as valid in their religious views, so long as they accept the legal validity as a social contract. The question then becomes, to what extent does a private, profit-making business have individual religious freedom rights, and how do those rights vary with the size of said business? A small family business would have very similar religious views, where as a multinational corporation can’t say the same, but should that family business have religious freedom rights to the same degree as an individual private citizen, if it all?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

First step: let’s identify the issue. I’m sure nobody sane would have an issue with a private citizen or non-profit organisation (churches) opting to not be involved in a wedding they do not see as valid in their religious views, so long as they accept the legal validity as a social contract. The question then becomes, to what extent does a private, profit-making business have individual religious freedom rights, and how do those rights vary with the size of said business? A small family business would have very similar religious views, where as a multinational corporation can’t say the same, but should that family business have religious freedom rights to the same degree as an individual private citizen, if it all?

Not if they're on American soil. Fuck that. Fuck their "freedom" and this red herring bullshit about morals, this isn't about morals, if it were there's only a microscopic portion of the population they could legitimately do business with.

 

[zoltanspawn]

If people don't want to operate businesses serving the general public, then they shouldn't. Nobody is forcing people to open bakeries. Why don't they do something more amenable to their beliefs?

I'm sure I regularly accommodate customers at work whose ideas and practices are abhorrent to me. Oh wow. I live in society with different kinds of people. Crazy.

 

[peeonme]

Hotels offer identical rooms to everybody who visits. If someone goes into a hotel and asks for something that they do not irdinarily offer - if a Moslem asks for a prayer rug to be placed in their room, for instance - they can say they do not offer that service. I doubt anybody would consider that discriminatory.

These people did not ask for an off-the-rack wedding cake. They wanted one made to their specifications. And the proprietor should have every right to turn such a request down.

Lex

If the proprietor only sold 'off the rack' cakes I would agree. If the proprietor made on a regular basis 'custom' or 'to order' cakes for others then he should refuse no one, with the exception of profanity or some thing seen as vulgar or obscene as in pedophilia.

 

[peeonme]

I would also add to the cake mix this thought, most businesses are incorporated. A corporation isn't protected when it comes to religion in the same way a person is.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Hotels offer identical rooms to everybody who visits. If someone goes into a hotel and asks for something that they do not irdinarily offer - if a Moslem asks for a prayer rug to be placed in their room, for instance - they can say they do not offer that service. I doubt anybody would consider that discriminatory.
Lex

That's an interesting example, particularly considering the mandatory Gideon in the bedside table drawer. At one point I worked in a hotel - two of them, actually, but the one was in the kitchen so it doesn't count here - but anyway, where the bible was placed was as specific as how to fold the toilet paper. I think most of the motel/hotel's I've been in had one. Tho probably not in kind you rent by the hour, where no one is gonna be looking in those drawers anyway.

Now, I don't believe not offering something is automatically discriminatory. But I do wonder how many people would start shrieking 'War on Xtians!" if, say, a prayer mat was folded next to the bible. How many phone calls the front desk would get asking why there's a mat next to the Good Book in an otherwise barren drawer. There's a distressing overlap between 'reasonable laws' and 'people who loath difference and wallow in their own loathsomeness'.

For the cake debacle, I couldn't find the info - was the cake specialty or was it one of their basic wedding cakes? I know birthday cakes are customizable to a limited extent, there's possibly something similar with wedding cakes. If it were a limited set of choices, do the cake, if it involved the labor of creativity a veto option would be mandatory.

(Not literally mandatorily in-the-drawer - I mean, doubt the seedier motels have bibles, you don't go rooting through drawers when renting by the hour, after all.

 

[Rickrock]

I have gone back and forth on this. I originally thought that they should not refuse the gay couple, but then thought that if it offended them, the couple could go elsewhere and the business would loose a few customers and they should be allowed to refuse customers. Then I realized that in large metropolitan areas the customers would have other choices of bakers, but in a small community they wouldn't, or if a large business like Walmart put all of the small private businesses out of business they could control what they allowed. I now believe that the bakery should not be allowed to refuse to bake a cake, but that there should be some leeway in deciding decorations that they can refuse. The problem is who decides what decorations are acceptable and what is not acceptable, such as swastikas, religious writings, pornographic pictures, etc? Also, they should be able to refuse disrespectful customers who are driving other customers away by their abusive, rude behavior. It's not a simple question with a simple answer.

 

[G-Lexington]

If the proprietor only sold 'off the rack' cakes I would agree. If the proprietor made on a regular basis 'custom' or 'to order' cakes for others then he should refuse no one, with the exception of profanity or some thing seen as vulgar or obscene as in pedophilia.

And who draws that line? If a triad wanted a wedding cake, should that be permitted, even though triads can't legally get married?

Lex

 

[luckynumbah7]

....although it could be said that hotels (generally speaking) are selling a certain experience of the rentable bedroom variety in which religion plays not too affective a part - I doubt many people actually open the book. They just have to nail the expected creature comforts, whether they'll be used or not. Start adding in what some people would consider random objects to the end table drawer and there's bound to be questions and complaints. Hell, there'd probably be more complaints when people figured out what the mat was for than if they weren't aware and overlooked it in the first place. The old "I don't want it but you can't have it" reasoning. Gotta love people.

 

[luckynumbah7]

And who draws that line? If a triad wanted a wedding cake, should that be permitted, even though triads can't legally get married?

Lex

You lost me, what's a wedding cake have to do with how many people are tieing the knot? I didn't think the newlyweds fought over whose half of the cake was bigger. 3 people would mean less cake, which is about the only difference as I didn't think writing font on wedding cakes was an 'in' thing. They're made as part of a social ritual, not created just because someone is now contractually obligated with another person. I separated it by whether people used a previously okay'd set of options or whether they created all new material.

 

[G-Lexington]

I w referencing the quote. About how cakemakers should be forced to make the cakes, unless something is against the law or "vulgar". That seems to imply that there would be a line that one could simply not cross. But who draws said line? What is vulgar to one is vanilla to another.

Lex

 

[luckynumbah7]

....now, if they wanted a uniquely shaped cake that splits evenly between three people I can understand why'd there be a refusal. No one is obligated to use their creativity on demand. I have difficulties conceptualizing how a wedding cake that looks like all other wedding cakes is somehow forcing unwanted and unaired with creativity out of a person.

 

[72-Jay]

I view this as a tough one..I can kinda see both sides of it, but overall: no I don't think they should be legally compelled to make the cake.

Plus would you really want a cake made by someone who didn't want to make it (but was forced to)?
I sure wouldn't. Nor would I want to support the owner/business.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I w referencing the quote. About how cakemakers should be forced to make the cakes, unless something is against the law or "vulgar". That seems to imply that there would be a line that one could simply not cross. But who draws said line? What is vulgar to one is vanilla to another.

Lex

Well damn, I usually don't miss whole paragraphs. Time for bed.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Something somebody brought up I hadn't even considered, us city folk can casually write this off as "Well DUH just go somewhere else," what about people who don't live near 50 bakeries, like the deep country or sparsely populated areas where the next bakery could be a 45 minute drive away? I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally don't like the precedent this would set, something nobody who's "in favor" of this discrimination seems to be considering, how a loss in a case like this could be cited for "We don't wanna serve queers in our restaurant," "We don't wanna rent rooms to our restaurant" and how it, in a not so subtle way, encourages the very anti-LGBT attitudes that we begin to see as early as kindergarden via bullying all the way up to grown ass men who antagonize homos with governmental support.

I don't think people are really giving this much thought beyond the literal problem of ok how do we get the cake done. No wonder American politics are such a mess, people really don't dive past the surface of things.

 

[nyctopgam]

And who draws that line? If a triad wanted a wedding cake, should that be permitted, even though triads can't legally get married?

Lex

I don't see why not. You're asked to bake a cake not conduct illegal marriage vows. For all one knows, a tasteful Christian cake may be used for satanic practice at home by the buyer, black candles and all

 

[Benvolio]

The state or federal government can constitutionally prohibit discrimination in serving gays. BUT freedom of speech and the press under the US Constitution and I believe all State Constitutions prohibit the baker from being required to decorate it in any particular way.

 

[peeonme]

And who draws that line? If a triad wanted a wedding cake, should that be permitted, even though triads can't legally get married?

Lex

Society draws that line, gay marriage has become a normal event. Of course you have those who will say it isn't, but with gay marriage being legal, recognized and licensed it is a part of our society.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I don't see why not. You're asked to bake a cake not conduct illegal marriage vows. For all one knows, a tasteful Christian cake may be used for satanic practice at home by the buyer, black candles and all

Now that I'm more awake, he was replying to Peeonme, who believes unless something is derogatory or illegal everything should be baked. The question was who decides on what's derogatory, not the current illegality of marrying 3 people. I know, confused me too for...oh, minutes and minutes and minutes. Lots of minutes. I know quite a few people disparage multiple relationships and consider them beyond the pale, at least twice I've actually heard that disparagement while they were hitting on me. Talk about plague avoidance.

It's an interesting argument (demanding everything except the vulgar), and also a common one. It's usually used by people who aren't in an artistic profession, however, because people who create art eventually run into people considering perfectly benign work a monstrosity. Religion is good for raising the specter of odd, heavy discouragements. Sex themed cakes, zombie Jesus themed cakes ....Santa themed cake, as Santa was far from a beloved figure in the protestant churches I was familiar with.

Personally, for art, I don't believe anything should be illegal to create or own (so long as it doesn't infringe on the consent of real individuals). Public display is another matter, there's a time and place for most things. Although I have higher standards of acknowledging mandatory fakeness on a work when the depiction is hyperrealism, like in photorealistic depictions of false events).