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

[gsdx]

As much as we like to bash fried, it remains the hook in cuisine the world over.

Indeed. KFC has become the traditional Christmas dinner in Japan. You would almost think that people are queueing in front of a theatre up to see the latest Star Wars movie.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

And not to praise gay bashing chains, but your description of their product is wholly inaccurate. Their product is good, and the mass sales isn't because of their politics.

"Good" is subjective. I think it's garbage and thought so long before I found out they're gay-hating d-bags. If I'm gonna have some fried chicken I'd rather it not be rubbery and soggy. I tried them once when I moved down south, never again.

 

[G-Lexington]

Chick fila is rather new here...I think the first one opened AFTER the controversy so I never stepped foot in one...nor will I ever
..same with Hobby Lobby...

I know for a fact that most of my gay friends and even straight liberal friends make a point not to give money to an entity you KNOW is using it to help make sure you are a second class citizen

It's not a boycott if you don't like the product and don't routinely use it in any event. If somebody says, "I'm not eating their gross chicken sandwiches anyway", they're not boycotting the chain - they're just continuing to not eat at a restaurant they don't like. And as NHU pointed out, we're in a minority here. Most of my friends love the food, and have continued to eat there.

I don't find KFC "slimy" - as NHU pointed out, it's just "moist". They lock in the juices that often seep out in the frying process. People grt used to fried chicken being various shades of dry, and it's unusual to have it as moist as it is in KFC. Not that it's superior if you don't like it that way, though.

Lex

 

[eastofeden]

Not that I'm defending giving someone money who actively uses those funds to discriminate but I think most chains indulge in using funds for less than savory purposes involving all sorts of discrimination. Some of them are just more honest about it. The apathy about it is probably part of an overall malaise.

True enough.....

It is perception for me though....goes back to Anita Bryant and Florida Orange Juice. I don't think I have bought orange juice of any kind since...I used to buy the cans though BEFORE Anita Bryant.

If I find out a company is anti choice or anti LGBT or racist I am done with them....even if it was my favorite restaurant...I wouldn't be able to look past it. I do agree that there may be other ethical practices that might deter me or maybe not...I would decide case by case....if and/or when I became aware of them.....

I do use the HRC usually once or twice a year to get a bigger picture and a low rating DOES affect my patronage...I will not support a company who does not support equality.....and it depends where the low ratings exist..some are worse than others for me...

https://www.hrc.org/blog/hrc-releases-annual-corporate-equality-index-609-companies-earn-perfect-sco

Virtue is commendable, but fried chicken and El Pollo Loco are completely different cuisines and markets. As much as we like to bash fried, it remains the hook in cuisine the world over. Whether Chik-fil-A is good for gays or not, their product is universally and correctly recognized for it superiority as well as customer service like no one else in fast food even vaguely approaches.

I dislike Whoopi Goldberg movies because of an obscene rendering of the U.S. National Anthem I once saw her perform as an acid jab at the status quo. It still sits with me so strongly I dislike seeing her movies, but I cannot take away from her talent, her intellect, or her good citizenship. I see the Chik-fil-A issue the same. Quality is quality -- politics is politics.

For me...I don't think my mother ever fried anything..neither did one set of my grandparents. The other grandma did fry chicken and frog legs...just OK for me...don't like the taste of the grease very much. I have never even owned a bottle of vegetable oil or any crisco....I am 60 now. I just use olive oil and I don't fry anything with coating. It was never about health so much as it was about what I grew up with and what I like best....I do lots of other unhealthy things to make up for it anyway.... I like fried artichoke hearts but even then I can only get a few down before the gag reflex makes an appearance...fried clams are good too if I could ever find some....but again..I can only eat a handful before the grease makes me sick...

Probably once or twice a year I get a craving for grease and go to KFC...it does the trick. I only buy one or two pieces of original recipe so I am not helping them get rich. If they donated money to the same entities as Chick Fil A though...I would never patronize them again. I could go to a private restaurant in case I need a grease fix....or Popeyes....

I love grilled chicken though so I can taste the skin and so El Pollo Loco is my choice..they also have fresh spicy avocado sauce to dip it in...I can drink the stuff. That is my definition of superior BUT...if I find out they use the $$$ to support any of the things I mentioned...that would be it for me.

A company's politics DOES make a difference for me....and not until recently with Susan Sarandon did Hollywood people ever make a difference much...except for Mel Gibson. I can't watch Mel Gibson or Susan Sarandon in ANYTHING now...I hate both of them and it does affect my ability to watch either of them. I can't get past their politics and statements....

It's not a boycott if you don't like the product and don't routinely use it in any event. If somebody says, "I'm not eating their gross chicken sandwiches anyway", they're not boycotting the chain - they're just continuing to not eat at a restaurant they don't like. And as NHU pointed out, we're in a minority here. Most of my friends love the food, and have continued to eat there.

I don't find KFC "slimy" - as NHU pointed out, it's just "moist". They lock in the juices that often seep out in the frying process. People grt used to fried chicken being various shades of dry, and it's unusual to have it as moist as it is in KFC. Not that it's superior if you don't like it that way, though.

Lex

I don't even know if I would like Chick Fil A as we never had one in the Bay Area I am aware of until after the reveal....or if we do..I never saw it...so I will never know if their chicken is better or not because I don't like who they are. I regularly pass two of them in my travels and would not consider eating there ever..so it is a boycott of sorts that is specifically related to their actions....

I think grilled or roasted chicken tastes better though (personal preference of course) and since chicken and fish are my favorite meat..I eat alot of both.

I have a favorite seafood restaurant that is privately owned but if I ever found out they donated to anti LGBT forces...I would never step foot in it again even though I LOVE the place...

I don't eat at Carl Jrs to this day because of their political and discriminatory owner....and we got rid of Coors Beer at the Bar and did not serve it because of their politics.....I fully support that action and I have a dim view of both companies even though they may have changed.....the damage is done in my eyes....

Hobby Lobby is close by but due to their practices against women and choice...I drive another 20 miles to Michaels...will probably never step foot in a Hobby Lobby....

I know there are people who will patronize all of these business and products BECAUSE they discriminate against people....or they don't care one way or the other...and that is fair enough I guess....

...I just am not in either one of those camps....

 

[purpilia25]

The whole cake thing is a frivolous argument but I think that is why it had made its way up through the courts. It would be much more cut and dry/without debate if someone were denied something more substantial. Imagine a gay couple driving down a long stretch of highway with an empty tank, and the only gas station in sight won't allow them to fill up at their station. Or the single hotel town denies the lesbian couple with their kids a room because they don't believe two women should share a bed. That's why the answer to the bakery needs to be that yes, you must bake a cake, unless it violates basic definitions of decency or hate speech; ie, swastikas, gore/violence, etc. Do they bake divorce cakes? Zombie cakes? Cakes for 2nd marriages, etc? You wouldn't run an effective business asking a straight couple all of these questions. The court is needed to clarify the matter in the instance of minorities because we make up such a small population of people purchasing cakes.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Do they bake divorce cakes? Zombie cakes? Cakes for 2nd marriages, etc? You wouldn't run an effective business asking a straight couple all of these questions. The court is needed to clarify the matter in the instance of minorities because we make up such a small population of people purchasing cakes.

Nobody else seems to acknowledge this crystal clear hole in their argument, if they don't serve anyone who doesn't live up to "Christian principles" (which themselves fluctuate) then virtually 0% of the population is eligible for their service.

 

[luckynumbah7]

The whole cake thing is a frivolous argument but I think that is why it had made its way up through the courts. It would be much more cut and dry/without debate if someone were denied something more substantial. Imagine a gay couple driving down a long stretch of highway with an empty tank, and the only gas station in sight won't allow them to fill up at their station. Or the single hotel town denies the lesbian couple with their kids a room because they don't believe two women should share a bed. That's why the answer to the bakery needs to be that yes, you must bake a cake, unless it violates basic definitions of decency or hate speech; ie, swastikas, gore/violence, etc. Do they bake divorce cakes? Zombie cakes? Cakes for 2nd marriages, etc? You wouldn't run an effective business asking a straight couple all of these questions. The court is needed to clarify the matter in the instance of minorities because we make up such a small population of people purchasing cakes.

...the difficulty with that lies in the creation of unique content. You can demand access to something that's already available but ya can't demand a new kind of product without prior agreement. A commission would be needed for a new design for most types of artistic work, might be the same with cake. No one should be mandated to create on demand, it infringes on other's autonomy.

There's also plenty of reasons someone couldn't bake a particular cake, like time management, effort, skill involved and the wish to retain some sort of leisure hours. Where did this idea that requesting a creative piece means the artist must accomplish it come from?

 

[Stef]

In the UK the baker would have breached the EU 2008 equality law - in the USA didn't he breach the state trade laws ?

I think if you advertise that you "bake superior wedding cakes" with no caveats then its reasonable to expect the baker to deliver without prejudice - if you make an accommodation for a christian baker then you set a presitence for all faiths in all trades to demand an accomodation - which could be chaotic - how a baker can claim he endorses every event his food is eaten at or that he applies all 64 biblical abominations equally should be interesting - This artist claim should be seen for what it is a blatent attempt to navigate trading laws

 

[NotHardUp1]

There is no such trading law in the U.S.

The claim that the baker sells "superior" wedding cakes is hardly an objective criterion. That moniker could even be used to bar gay cakes if the majority of the population found gay to be inferior due to their prejudice, plus the claim undoubtedly predated gay marriages.

A baker with no religion might well object to a mock wedding, for example, and object if asked to depict something he found objectionable, even if it were not obscene, per se.

Again, the argument is not whether gays should be able to buy wedding cakes, but whether any and every baker should be required to accommodate. It is not far different from some retailer of clothing being required to stock peek-a-boo underwear. If the retailer chooses not to, even for matters of style and store reputation, the customer does not have the right to compel the store.

More specifically, if a store sells peek-a-boo underwear, and is a store like Victoria's Secret, they are under no obligation to allow a man to visit a store, try on said underwear in view of purchasing. They have every right to limit sales to women, to restrict men's access to changing room areas, to not provide male changing rooms, etc. They do not have to make special accommodation for transvestites. It is not a basic right, and their business stands to suffer real harm in sales (possibly) if the public avers from mixed traffic.

This is not a civil rights issue. It's a cake.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Nobody else seems to acknowledge this crystal clear hole in their argument, if they don't serve anyone who doesn't live up to "Christian principles" (which themselves fluctuate) then virtually 0% of the population is eligible for their service.

That's kind of building up a straw man case rather than what is actually happening. They didn't claim to be selling only to paragons. The baker objects to homosexuality, and by extension, gay weddings. The baker didn't become the apologist for the entirety of Jewish or Christian Levitical Law. Many Christians do not accept the laws of food restriction, accept the rights of kinsman redeemer, or forgive debts every 50 years.

Actually, it doesn't even require any reference to religious basis. If I own a bakery, and a woman comes in to buy a cake for her son, and I know as a local merchant the son, and that he has a long history of beating his girlfriend, and I find him repugnant and all domestic abusers repugnant, I have a right to decline the sale. I'm not a gumball machine, but a local business. I don't have to sell to mafioso, to Republican Party officials, to any number of categories, some personally objectionable, some morally, etc. I have the right to decline a sale without reason given. If my decisions are too capricious and arbitrary, my business dries up. If I serve a majority of my patrons well, then my business thrives.

It is the market place. It is not much different that businesses who offer good food with crappy service. You can take it or leave it if you want, but you can't sue because it is crappy service and expect much to happen as long as everyone else is paying for crappy service and coming back again.

The notion that commerce is carried out some sort of absolute or unrestricted basis is fallacious. I could be selling Dr. Tichenor's cough syrup, over the counter, but if I think a bunch of teenagers are buying it to get drunk, I can decline to sell it to any of them if I see them coming in repeatedly to buy it. The law does not compel me to sell my wares to anyone. THAT is the meaning of the posted right to refuse customers. It is the seller's announced intent to be the arbiter of his selling practices. It is not about dress code, bare feet, etc. Those are just someone's assumptions, not some legal precept.

 

[NotHardUp1]

"Good" is subjective. I think it's garbage and thought so long before I found out they're gay-hating d-bags. If I'm gonna have some fried chicken I'd rather it not be rubbery and soggy. I tried them once when I moved down south, never again.

And I defend your right to your tastes in every event. I myself will not set foot in a Subway. Their bread baking smells awful to me, and I usually love bread, but not theirs. More importantly, they opened one in my home town and when I went, they asked me what kind of cheese I wanted, "white or yellow." Any deli that doesn't offer actual cheese variety is just some sort of dumbed down fail in my book. But, I'm obviously in a tiny minority when it comes to Subway, but I don't begrudge others their love of it -- I just won't be eating there myself.

The lines at Chick-fil-A are longer than any other drive through in several cities I have lived in now. And they are out there taking orders in the line, speeding up the flow, and it's prima facie the proof that their product is not unpopular or that they lack for sales. I think it is even more impressive that they made the statement rescinding their anti-gay voice in the national debate.

At some point, advocacy triggers a backlash when perceived as excessive. We are better off moving forward than fueling the opposition: https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-time-for-gays-to-forgive-chick-fil-a

The claims here are not accurate: https://thinkprogress.org/chick-fil-a-still-anti-gay-970f079bf85/ The FCA doesn't merely target homosexuality -- it allows for NO sex pre-marriage -- chastity, period. It is not anti-gay so much as anti-modern-sexuality, a completely different stance. Similarly, the Salvation Army is not a group established to fight gays. It works with drunks and addicts and others to get them fed and housed. It is also an Evangelical Christian organization, so is inherently anti-gay, but that is not its charter. Even the Anderson home is not founded as an anti-gay home, even though it has terrible language in its charter. It's helping boys who've had a terrible time in foster care, domestic abuse, etc.

If Chick-fil-A's owners are to be damned for giving to their own religion's charities, then ALL businesses must face the same scrutiny and prejudice. Jewish owners must be censured for supporting Israel. Muslim owners must be condemned for being anti-women. Buddhist owners must be suspect for being linked with anti-Muslim pogroms. Republican owners must be rejected for giving to Senators who target the poor. Democrats must be boycotted for interfering with true democratic process by blocking Bernie and his fair chance as their nominee.

The list never ends. And it's not because the Cathy family are heroes or wonderful. It's simply that they are perpetual targets because their business is privately owned and out of the normal reach of the thought police and the normal influence of the few. When we object to the other businesses also harming society with their profits, this one might begin to matter.

 

[Benvolio]

Freedom of speech guarantees the baker the right to refuse to decorate a cake, particularly if he is asked to include words, such as "Bill +Joe".

 

[72-Jay]

Chick fila is rather new here...I think the first one opened AFTER the controversy so I never stepped foot in one...nor will I ever
..same with Hobby Lobby...

I've been to Chick-fil-A before, but these days I avoid it (actually anymore for the most part I don't do fast-food in general)
If there was a true competitor to Hobby Lobby here, I'd avoid them too...if for no other reason than being closed on Sundays

 

[Kulindahr]

Sure...he shouldn't have to make it BUT he must have a sign on his window stating that he will not serve gay people.

He wants to live by his convictions..well so does everyone else pal. Let people know EXACTLY the kind of establishment you run and then let the market do what it will.

I would be pissed off if I accidentally gave him a dime....

So...a conditional no and since it isn't an option..no poll vote for me...

This.

Let's take this a step further, you're on the right track about convictions and all. The ONLY way I will support a business refusing to serve gays on religious grounds is if they also refuse to serve ANYONE who lives in a way that is against their beliefs so if the want to be able to discriminate they also have to deny service to: unwed couples, bastard children, people who curse, people who smoke, people who have poor diets (body is supposed to be a temple), people who work on Sundays, atheists, Jews, buddhists, Muslims (anyone of a different religion), people who have disobeyed their parents, basically 99% of the population.

Let's make this clear, this is NOT about freedom of religion it's about freedom to discriminate, it has nothing to do with religious beliefs or taking a stand for Jeebus otherwise every single customer would have to go through an extensive screening to make sure "God" would approve. This is more self-righteous fuckery masking as religious practice.

If Christian businesses screened every customer they wouldn't HAVE any business.

Actually, a real Christian would follow an admonition from the New Testament. To paraphrase for this situation, it says if someone asks you to bake him a cake, bake him two.

 

[Kulindahr]

What I keep hearing in this thread "It's ok for businesses to treat gay people like second class citizens."

No, it's more that businesses should be able to establish limitations on what they do and be able to stick to them. Just as an example, some plumbers won't work with old lead pipes, and some websites won't allow pictures of children.

What a business ought to do is what the plumber who wouldn't handle lead pipes did (yes, that's an actual example): gave my dad a business card for a plumber who would. So if a baker won't make a gay wedding cake, he should give the customer a business card for someone who will.

And a Christian baker should be even more eager to do so, given the admonition that if someone wanted to take your coat you should give him your overcoat, too.

 

[Kulindahr]

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?

Good point: large corporations can easily have employees who will handle different aspects of the business; for example, when I was in college there was a real estate agency who had one guy who handled customers who required things to be kosher (I'm not sure what that had to do with real estate, but they had one). Or they can farm it out; I have a friend who works at a company which makes fans of all sizes for moving air in commercial buildings, and there are certain things they just won't do in-house, so they farm those things out to those who will. So even if you have a small family business where no one will violate their conscience by putting two male names on the same cake, that business ought to be able to make the cake and then farm out the decoration.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

No, it's about conscience, and requiring people to act against their conscience is a vile thing.

But it's also about stupidity, especially business stupidity: any intelligent business owner will grasp that if there's a service you can't perform, you have information for your customer about where they can get that.

So I have no problem with the right of people to not go against their conscience; to me the real issue here is the stupidity of the way they've gone about that (especially since they're going against their own Book).

 

[Kulindahr]

There's a distressing overlap between 'reasonable laws' and 'people who loath difference and wallow in their own loathsomeness'.

Superb turn of phrase!

 

[Kulindahr]

I dislike Whoopi Goldberg movies because of an obscene rendering of the U.S. National Anthem I once saw her perform as an acid jab at the status quo. It still sits with me so strongly I dislike seeing her movies, but I cannot take away from her talent, her intellect, or her good citizenship.

I vaguely remember that. But I tolerate her because she did an incredible job on Star Trek NG in a position she invented and told them they should have.

So... what if someone wanted a pic of Whoopi on their wedding cake?

 

[Kulindahr]

A baker with no religion might well object to a mock wedding, for example, and object if asked to depict something he found objectionable, even if it were not obscene, per se.

That rang a bell -- there was a baker here who refused to do cakes for re-affirmation of vows "weddings". People just drove five miles up the road.