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

[peeonme]

The court would probably side with a refusal to put any language or decoration depicting an act for which a person could be arrested
if they did it in public.

 

[luckynumbah7]

The court would probably side with a refusal to put any language or decoration depicting an act for which a person could be arrested
if they did it in public.

Nah, the court would first find out if the bakers had made ironic or humorous cakes before. There's a lot of 'slightly to deliberately filthily themed baked goods' stores out there.

 

[luckynumbah7]

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.

The reason I separate the cake along creative lines is because, as an example, a bunch of nazi's could request in the future (via a site that I haven't actually uploaded anything to yet, pretend with me here) paper mache or leather masks with possible custom work if an agreement is made. Now, I imagine I'd find those alterations requested by the literal example of nazi's offensive, I can think of several permutations of masks that I'd refuse to make.

Now, I do plan on offering custom work. That doesn't mean I should be mandated to take every offer that comes along. Not only because that would violate what I've previously agreed to offer the public (supply x,y and z masks to everybody with the possibility that I might agree to custom work - there's an absolute shitload of generic reasons I've often refused, though, so the refusal of custom work is not at all unusual), but because customization involves more mental effort than turning out carbon copies. It's not quite the same job and you definitely don't get the same product. Once the base product changes free will to take a job or refuse it is involved; not everything is for sale.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Tho I do think the baker was probably an ass about it, it isn't difficult to refuse service by any one of several excuses if he thought a confectionary creation's specificity in design (and I'm not referencing the kind of cake it is but more what it says or looks like to an outside observer) would encourage something he didn't want to encourage.

Fortunately it is an illogical thing for most people to consider that a 'generic' wedding cake sold to the public changes its 'inherent meaning' depending on who is buying it.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

The reason I separate the cake along creative lines is because, as an example, a bunch of nazi's could request in the future (via a site that I haven't actually uploaded anything to yet, pretend with me here) paper mache or leather masks with possible custom work if an agreement is made. Now, I imagine I'd find those alterations requested by the literal example of nazi's offensive, I can think of several permutations of masks that I'd refuse to make.

Now, I do plan on offering custom work. That doesn't mean I should be mandated to take every offer that comes along. Not only because that would violate what I've previously agreed to offer the public (supply x,y and z masks to everybody with the possibility that I might agree to custom work - there's an absolute shitload of generic reasons I've often refused, though, so the refusal of custom work is not at all unusual), but because customization involves more mental effort than turning out carbon copies. It's not quite the same job and you definitely don't get the same product. Once the base product changes free will to take a job or refuse it is involved; not everything is for sale.

I knew we'd have to disagree somewhere at some point. In abstract concepts I can see what you're saying but for all practicality, in this specific case, it all still spells discrimination for me, they weren't asking for a penis cake or something lewd.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I knew we'd have to disagree somewhere at some point. In abstract concepts I can see what you're saying but for all practicality, in this specific case, it all still spells discrimination for me, they weren't asking for a penis cake or something lewd.

Oh, I'm sure. People fall through the cracks all the damn time. S'why the point is to aim for both the spirit and the letter. Me, I think it depends on what was on the cake they asked for. My concept of a wedding cake, the one I'm most familiar with, is usually a bit of a tower and may contain piping on the edges. Various cultures and traditions intermingle so the design can fluctuate, but at the end of the day it's a large cake made to be eaten in a party. I don't consider the base image of a large frosted cake a use of creative licence because nobody owns it, and I think if nobody owns it everyone can have it, therefore everyone can buy it. Beyond that I'd consider it creative and up to the artist to judge.

Since I don't know what they asked for I can't say whether they're impinging on Philip's freedom of expression. I think Philip's lawyer is doing a disservice to freedom of expression by basing the argument on 'but the cake is for a wedding', because weddings are no more special than other just-as-expensive cakes for other celebrations - like birthdays. That isn't difficult to show, a fancy cake is a fancy cake, I'm almost positive the occasion doesn't affect the price of ingredients or time and hourly rate in the finished product. Well, minus the doubling of the cake; for weddings people often make a spare, and that does affect price.

Otherwise they'd have to explain to the public why they're charging top dollar for a cake people could get cheaper from the same bakery so long as they didn't say it was for a wedding. People tend to notice discrepancies of that nature.

Once you start wanting cakes shaped like dragons or the baker's version of 'Under the Sea' as a theme, though, creativity gets involved. Hikes up the price too, obviously.

 

[G-Lexington]

A "standard" wedding cake is white cake, raspberry filling, buttercream frosting. Hell, they sell slices of it at the Safeway next to my house, complete with frosting rose. Fondant is fairly common, as is piping and lots of accessories like ribbons and whatnot. I only know one baker, and she does have what you might call an "off-the-rack wedding cake" that fits that standard, and is (not surprisingly) the cheapest one on the list. And yeah, that one should be available to everybody - be it a gay wedding, or triad "union", or some Satanic ritual.

The thing is - very few people select that one. Whether due to societal pressure or no, nearly everybody wants a "special cake just for us" for their "special day". Few of them want dragon-shaped cakes - they save that for birthdays. No, it's usually multiple tiers of different flavored cakes, with various designs and toppers and accoutrements. That's what jacks the price up massively. Doing tiers is pretty complicated, and any designs not "off the rack" involve drawing, making rough drafts, and what not. And, from what I understand, THIS is what the baker objected to. It wasn't just a case of squirting a rainbow frosting on a standard cake and sending it out the door. It's a lot of time and effort.

And of course, one has to take into consideration how good the cake is. I say this half-flippantly, but I have plenty of friends (gay friends, even) who never stopped eating at Chick-Fil-A even for a week. Because yeah, sucks about the gay rights thing, but damn, those chicken sandwiches, amirite?

Lex

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

I have plenty of friends (gay friends, even) who never stopped eating at Chick-Fil-A even for a week. Because yeah, sucks about the gay rights thing, but damn, those chicken sandwiches, amirite?

Lex

Not to hijack but I've never understood the appeal of soggy fried chicken wrapped in tin foil.

 

[luckynumbah7]

A "standard" wedding cake is white cake, raspberry filling, buttercream frosting. Hell, they sell slices of it at the Safeway next to my house, complete with frosting rose. Fondant is fairly common, as is piping and lots of accessories like ribbons and whatnot. I only know one baker, and she does have what you might call an "off-the-rack wedding cake" that fits that standard, and is (not surprisingly) the cheapest one on the list. And yeah, that one should be available to everybody - be it a gay wedding, or triad "union", or some Satanic ritual.

The thing is - very few people select that one. Whether due to societal pressure or no, nearly everybody wants a "special cake just for us" for their "special day". Few of them want dragon-shaped cakes - they save that for birthdays. No, it's usually multiple tiers of different flavored cakes, with various designs and toppers and accoutrements. That's what jacks the price up massively. Doing tiers is pretty complicated, and any designs not "off the rack" involve drawing, making rough drafts, and what not. And, from what I understand, THIS is what the baker objected to. It wasn't just a case of squirting a rainbow frosting on a standard cake and sending it out the door. It's a lot of time and effort.

And of course, one has to take into consideration how good the cake is. I say this half-flippantly, but I have plenty of friends (gay friends, even) who never stopped eating at Chick-Fil-A even for a week. Because yeah, sucks about the gay rights thing, but damn, those chicken sandwiches, amirite?

Lex

The secret to their chicken sandwiches is pickle juice brining, or so I hear. I'm the type to mimic recipes, though I don't usually find that boycotting products does much good politically speaking when the product has that kind of allure. Then again, I don't eat at that asshole cheeseteak place here either. I tried it once to see what the fuss was about, other places make a better sub.

So the baker didn't want to do a cake that wasn't 'off the rack'? That isn't the same action as refusing to sell them any cake at all, irregardless of why he decided he didn't want to design a new cake.

If he refused to sell them any cake just because it was being used in a wedding, I'd think then there'd be clear error.

I still think his lawyer is arguing it badly by basing it on the occasion for the cake though.

(personally, I'd rather have the dragon as a wedding cake. But for that kind of party I'm damn well going to enjoy myself, a staid 3 tier with roses and little figures of the happy couple don't appeal)

 

[luckynumbah7]

Speaking of cake, does anyone else read 'Cakewrecks'? They also occasionally post cakes that excel. The subject brought the blog to mind so I wandered over and the first post included truck nuts. Somewhere in there was commentary about a turkey cake getting someone removed from fb posting privileges for 'nudity violation' (I'm assumin' cuz it reminds others of, ah, particular personal equipment). But! There's a 'wedding cake wreck' saga as well and it's something to see. It's a great example of why people shouldn't press regarding what you can and can't create at a given point, I'm sure many of those nightmares were done by otherwise competent bakers.

http://www.cakewrecks.com/home/tag/wedding-wrecks

 

[frankfrank]

Not to hijack but I've never understood the appeal of boring, soggy fried chicken BREAST wrapped in tin foil.

Corrected for truth.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Corrected for truth.

frank I heart you

 

[frankfrank]

Oh, and not to forget mentioning that the yummy skin is all gone...

 

[G-Lexington]

I tried it a couple of times. I like KFC and Popeye's better. And that's some faint praise right there.

Lex

 

[eastofeden]

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
.....

...and besides

.....
We have El Pollo Loco here
..beats the shit out of all of them anyway
.

 

[luckynumbah7]

I tried it a couple of times. I like KFC and Popeye's better. And that's some faint praise right there.

Lex

I want to know why KFC's chicken always kills my guts while I can make it myself just fine. Also, is it just me or does it seem kinda slimy to anyone else? Specifically the actual skin under-the-crust bit.

 

[luckynumbah7]

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

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.

 

[NotHardUp1]

we have El Pollo Loco here
..beats the shit out of all of them anyway
.

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.

I want to know why KFC's chicken always kills my guts while I can make it myself just fine. Also, is it just me or does it seem kinda slimy to anyone else? Specifically the actual skin under-the-crust bit.

I think KFD uses those pressure cooker deep fryers to speed cooking time, control the frying, etc. They also use a very heavy dredge/batter to ensure lots of crust, which inherently traps moisture and oil beneath it, so yes, there is unusual moisture left under it and soft layer under the crust, but not exactly slimy in the sense of runny goo, just moist batter.

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.

It is hard to play the purity card in investing, buying, or other financial activities if one is honest about the corrupt practices in business everywhere. The host of sins is broad and the guilty are many. Incorporating offshore to avoid fair taxes makes many corporations greedy and selfish while pretending to be good corporate citizens. Many others carry huge profits on the backs of taxpayers via the concessions they get in locating facilities in a state, and their workers may all be middle class while taking the tax dollars from the poor. Still others are inherently evil.

But, we don't boycott electric companies or oil companies or chemical companies, and we all know that nary a one of them isn't raping the environment and using the third world like a toilet, supposedly on our behalf.

It's just easier to hate Baptists, and I get that, but there's no real option for piety in business dealings today. It's like the lot bragging about farm to table. Yes, it is a laudable movement, but when they get too preachy, it gets to rankle, as no one cooks without lemons and other unobtainables in the heartland.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Not to hijack but I've never understood the appeal of soggy fried chicken wrapped in tin foil.

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.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Sorry to disagree with most today on this thread, but a business that serves the public should not have as an option the 'right' to deny service to any portion of the public, excluding those without proper attire or acting in an unruly fashion.

The street that their store is located on is maintained by taxes paid by all in that community, the fire department, police department
provide service and protection in like fashion. Funds coming from the general population.
That includes gays.

Hmmm. Methinks this is a mix of oddly selective "rights" here.

With respect, I suggest your observation about public roads and access to be moot. Private clubs and associations meet in buildings on public thoroughfares all the time. It does not change their nature or right to be exclusive. We also seem to be conflating public business in this thread with private business open to the public. Two different things.

More concerning, you are defending the right to exclude someone from dining in a "public" restaurant in flip-flops and a tee shirt, and that is ok, not their right as plebeians, but gays have rights they do not? I think this is the best illustration of all of the tunnel vision that has characterized too many gay rights advocates. Rights are rights, privileges are privileges.

If a business or school can have a bourgeois dress code and abridge the "rights" of patrons that way, but another can be compelled to sell a product they wish not to, that seems more than a little inconsistent.

The truth is, we voluntarily make concessions in business all the time in order to be able to purchase a product or service. The idea of rights in that regard are not simple.

The black protests of the mid-20th century made sense in an effort to end real segregation and separation and tiered services for blacks. In the 21st century, we do not see any attempt to say "No Gays" in businesses. We don't see any real movement to say gays should be content with inferior or segregated services. Instead, we find some gay advocates saying buy from gays because they are gay, a clearly discriminatory preference.

I say, we are seeing the gradual acceptance of gays as equals in society. The way to continue that progress is to stand when it is important, but pass on the minor stuff.