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

[fabulouslyghetto]

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.

I get the broader sense and all that jazz but what this boils down to is a double standard. Have these same sanctimonious bakers ever denied making a cake for an unwed couple? For alcoholics? For people who work on the sabbath? If they're not applying their Christian standards across the board to every single customer then this is discrimination point blank period no matter how much we theorize, pontificate, extrapolate or dress their rights and priveleges up in colorful words. It's, by definition, discrimination. Should they be allowed to do it? Fuck no.

Should bakers be allowed to refuse a gigantic penis cake or a cake depicting a 15-man gang bang bukake party? Absolutely, but from what I gather from this story the request was reasonable and denied simply because they're gay. There was a time not too long ago black people were told to "Go to another restaurant." NOBODY (who's worth their weight in salt) looks back on that time period with proud-like nostalgia. And I don't see too much of a stretch from "Businesses should have a right to refuse gay couples" and "black people" or "Jewish" or any other adjective that describes a minority.

I'm absolutely confused. Did the couple come in drunk and unruly? Did they make unreasonable demands like a gold-encrusted cake with diamond-coated frosting? What did they do that so many people are convinced a business should have the right to refuse them? When has discrimination ever in history been the correct answer?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

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).

I'm Mr Both Sides of the Coin, I spend more time than is probably necessary trying to see things from "the other side." And there's nothing I can conceive of that would justify denying service to someone based on their sexual orientation, which IS what happened, yes? If this were a straight couple that came in with the same exact request would they have been refused? Again, most of our parents can tell us about a time where people were refused service because of their skin color, is that what we're moving back towards? Nevermind, stupid question, culturally and politically that's exactly where we're headed, as a homosexual that's also black I'm gonna cash in by creating an app that lets other black homos know the 3 or 4 places in town that won't refuse us service.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

As much as I think places shouldn’t be forced to do anything, I think it’s just as stupid as people who can’t leave their religion at the door when they work in a business that deals with the public. If you can’t se aside your beliefs and just do your job, or do the business you set up to do, then you’re just as much of a idiot as anyone trying to force you to do something you don’t want to do.

As a vegetarian I didn’t kick a guy out of my store or refuse business to him when he said he was looking for pain medicine because he was castrating Pigs, even though I’m vehemently against that. You know why? Because I’m not a fucking baby who thinks the world revolves around me.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

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.

Places like Dominos, Papa Johns and Pizza Hut are still in business well. That doesn’t speak of good food, it just speaks of the general public’s lack of good taste.

 

[peeonme]

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.

But, can that plumber tell gays that he won't work on their old lead pipes if he works on other peoples old lead pipes?
If you make wedding cakes, you sell wedding cakes to everyone. It's pretty simple.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

As much as I think places shouldn’t be forced to do anything, I think it’s just as stupid as people who can’t leave their religion at the door when they work in a business that deals with the public. If you can’t se aside your beliefs and just do your job, or do the business you set up to do, then you’re just as much of a idiot as anyone trying to force you to do something you don’t want to do.

As a vegetarian I didn’t kick a guy out of my store or refuse business to him when he said he was looking for pain medicine because he was castrating Pigs, even though I’m vehemently against that. You know why? Because I’m not a fucking baby who thinks the world revolves around me.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Places like Dominos, Papa Johns and Pizza Hut are still in business well. That doesn’t speak of good food, it just speaks of the general public’s lack of good taste.

Could've mentioned McDonalds as well. The American public would buy deep-fried turds if it's cheap, quick and conveninent.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Places like Dominos, Papa Johns and Pizza Hut are still in business well. That doesn’t speak of good food, it just speaks of the general public’s lack of good taste.

As I said prior, taste is a matter of taste. I may not agree with the food you love or hate, but I repeat that it is personal and up to any individual to patronize or decline a restaurant.

Disgusting is in the maw of the beholder. I have vegan friends who find filet mignon or ribeye steak to be disgusting. The majority of society happily will accept their culinary offal while being branded beasts. We're diverse.

The difference here is, people are not literally queuing up all hours of the day outside the other fast food joints. There's clearly a difference in their service and food quality that is why people prefer them. I'd wager almost no one changed to their chain due to politics.

 

[NotHardUp1]

As much as I think places shouldn’t be forced to do anything, I think it’s just as stupid as people who can’t leave their religion at the door when they work in a business that deals with the public. If you can’t se aside your beliefs and just do your job, or do the business you set up to do, then you’re just as much of a idiot as anyone trying to force you to do something you don’t want to do.

Agreed.

The onus is on the employee who accepts a job that knowingly puts him in conflict with his ethics, religion or morality. He can choose to work in another industry or occupation. An observant Jew or Muslim can ill accept a job in grocery that sells pork if his job it to mop at night and he must mop the meat market. A pacificist should consider declining the job in the small department store that also sells handguns.

 

[Benvolio]

I get the broader sense and all that jazz but what this boils down to is a double standard. Have these same sanctimonious bakers ever denied making a cake for an unwed couple? For alcoholics? For people who work on the sabbath? If they're not applying their Christian standards across the board to every single customer then this is discrimination point blank period no matter how much we theorize, pontificate, extrapolate or dress their rights and priveleges up in colorful words. It's, by definition, discrimination. Should they be allowed to do it? Fuck no.

Should bakers be allowed to refuse a gigantic penis cake or a cake depicting a 15-man gang bang bukake party? Absolutely, but from what I gather from this story the request was reasonable and denied simply because they're gay. There was a time not too long ago black people were told to "Go to another restaurant." NOBODY (who's worth their weight in salt) looks back on that time period with proud-like nostalgia. And I don't see too much of a stretch from "Businesses should have a right to refuse gay couples" and "black people" or "Jewish" or any other adjective that describes a minority.

I'm absolutely confused. Did the couple come in drunk and unruly? Did they make unreasonable demands like a gold-encrusted cake with diamond-coated frosting? What did they do that so many people are convinced a business should have the right to refuse them? When has discrimination ever in history been the correct answer?

I doubt if anyone ever asks for a cake celebrating their unwed status, alcoholism, or sabbath working. The problem arises when a cake is requested showing gay marriage. Yes, it is discrimination, but it is free speech, which trumps the discrimination taboo. I believe the court will hold the state can prohibit discrimination is selling to gays, but it may not dictate decorating the cake.

 

[peeonme]

I doubt if anyone ever asks for a cake celebrating their unwed status, alcoholism, or sabbath working. The problem arises when a cake is requested showing gay marriage. Yes, it is discrimination, but it is free speech, which trumps the discrimination taboo. I believe the court will hold the state can prohibit discrimination is selling to gays, but it may not dictate decorating the cake.

So, can a cake shop tell a black hetero. couple that it will only top the cake with figures that depict white couples?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

I doubt if anyone ever asks for a cake celebrating their unwed status, alcoholism, or sabbath working. The problem arises when a cake is requested showing gay marriage. Yes, it is discrimination, but it is free speech, which trumps the discrimination taboo. I believe the court will hold the state can prohibit discrimination is selling to gays, but it may not dictate decorating the cake.

Doesn't matter if they're PUTTING their sins on display on the cake, if the business isn't going to sell to homosexuals then they can't sell to anyone else who commits any of the 116,000 sins in the bible. I thought that was pretty clear, maybe next time I'll spell it out for you a little more clearly and concisely.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Doesn't matter if they're PUTTING their sins on display on the cake, if the business isn't going to sell to homosexuals then they can't sell to anyone else who commits any of the 116,000 sins in the bible. I thought that was pretty clear, maybe next time I'll spell it out for you a little more clearly and concisely.

True.

If they believe that homosexuality is a sin, all these other sins are no better or worse than the other. They're equally as bad. Though of course that's not the case with these people, they're hate mongers under the guise of religion.

 

[peeonme]

I just read the title of this thread again.
Re: So, should the baker be legally compelled to make the gay wedding cake?
Cakes aren't gay. People might be.
Really, this revolves around a proprietor telling a segment of our population "I don't like your kind". It's akin to the Jim crow laws of the
south.
It alienates, ostracizes and prevents people from assimilating in to being a part of the whole. It hangs a banner over their head that says "not normal".
It sets a standard in society to treat gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans genders in a discriminatory fashion under the guise of religion.
It is not freedom of speech, it is hate speech.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I just read the title of this thread again.
Re: So, should the baker be legally compelled to make the gay wedding cake?
Cakes aren't gay. People might be.

As far as creating particular nuance in an obvious theme goes, you're mistaken. That's one reason why artists, including the fancy food buggers, retain the business practice of discretion in choice when requests arrive. Most people usually have the better sense to be polite and to refer elsewhere, however, if they're not able or willing to complete the request.

Communication is often involved using food as a means. The extent of the communication, what's being communicated and where individual responsibility starts and ends seem to be a conundrum. If I typed the name Franz Von Bayros (as one of innumerable examples) I suspect you, personally, would be hard-pressed to say a sketch is just a picture and there's no such possibility as condoning or encouraging through physical representations bestiality or 'underage' or ....specifically acknowledging romantic/sexual matters through decoration' cake.* But if I brought up Greek and Roman representations of the same, nary an eyebrow would be raised. Mostly. "You don't care about that, why care about this" is a bad, bad position to be in, ideologically, semantically and contextually speaking. A Decadence era themed cake is no more difficult than airbrushing on a graduation photo (and arguably harms less people - years of stress goes into graduation to get that photo, a sketch is a bit of ink on paper using the imagination, the stress involved is largely during the creative effort).

But people would say there's a difference (and you stated it earlier), and you'd say that because you didn't like the obvious subject matter gracing the cake, Mr. Bake Unless Vulgar. So. Yes, I think there could conceivably be a 'gay wedding cake' because communication itself is muddy at best. The content shifts meaning depending on the viewer and how the viewer interprets the subject matter, yes? Obviously. The qustion is whether the cake itself shows the subject matter. That depends on what the couple asked for, and that was not described.

Other people have made the same decision you previously did - that the subject matter does indeed, well, matter.

*Now, I think a cake is just a cake. Mostly. Everyone seems to have exceptions, mine isn't in the theme/subject of a creation but in the affect that theme would have in that particular place and time with X participants. But you've already shown you think theme is a possible issue. So have many other people. Sometimes a cigar isn't a cigar because, contextually dependent on the people involved, it's a Great. Big. Dick. Punnery fully intended.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Sometimes a cigar isn't a cigar because, contextually dependent on the people involved, it's a Great. Big. Dick. Punnery fully intended.

Keep in mind Bayros is considered high art.

Course, that would make the question "How do we get on the same page" about what possibly indicates what in variously contexted matters regarding gender and sexuality - and what are the ramifications' of mandatory creation. And then we're back where we started because people are reading wildly different versions of the same book and some of 'em want to be asses about it.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

It's akin to the Jim crow laws of the
south.
It alienates, ostracizes and prevents people from assimilating in to being a part of the whole. It hangs a banner over their head that says "not normal".
It sets a standard in society to treat gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans genders in a discriminatory fashion under the guise of religion.
It is not freedom of speech, it is hate speech.

I thought I was the only person who saw this parallel.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I thought I was the only person who saw this parallel.

What's the issue, selling them a cake or selling them a cake with a specific message?

 

[luckynumbah7]

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...

You'd think a conditional 'no' would be an option, what with others being so careful to preserve both their own and other's forms of expression.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

What's the issue, selling them a cake or selling them a cake with a specific message?

Refusing service, whatever that means in this scenario. I've seen hints in your posts that maybe they asked for something the bakery doesn't normally do in the first place, gay or straight, but that doesn't seem to be the case. They were refused service because they both have penises. Period. We can expound and pontificate until the cows come home but this is, by definition (quite textbook) discrimination.

The couple didn't come in drunk and unruly knocking things over, they weren't feverishly groping each other and making out on in the lobby, they weren't antagonizing other guests, they didn't do anything to justify being refused service other than having the same genitilia. I've asked about 60 times if a straight couple making the same request would've been refused and people are avoiding answering that like the plague.

Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. Period. No amount of theorizing and analyzing changes that, unless there's some detail I'm missing about the story that justifies them being refused service, unless the circumstances are such that a straight couple making the same exact request would've been refused as well.

Still, I see no difference between "straights only" and "whites only."