No Decorated Cake For You! Take Your Business Elsewhere!

[DAReese]

The. Baker. Served. Gays.

The. Baker. Didn't. Cater. Gay. Weddings. Because. They. Were. Gay.

[John Brennan]

The. Baker. Served. Gays.

The. Baker. Didn't. Cater. Gay. Weddings. Because. They. Were. Gay.

Right-- the weddings, not the people. Do you not see the difference? Is a wedding a person, to be discriminated against?

[In XS 7]

Oranges and apples, please.

[DAReese]

The. Baker. Served. Gays.

The. Baker. Didn't. Cater. Gay. Weddings. Because. They. Were. Gay.

Right-- the weddings, not the people. Do you not see the difference? Is a wedding a person, to be discriminated against?

Pretty sure you can't have a wedding without people. I'm not going to rent an apartment to you not because you're black, but because you go to the Baptist Church. Is this any different? After all, the church isn't a person.

[John Brennan]

It's very different, David, but you're not going to see what you don't want to see, so there's little point in trying to illuminate it any further. Those who will see and understand, will understand; those who won't, won't.

[DAReese]

It's very different, David, but you're not going to see what you don't want to see, so there's little point in trying to illuminate it any further. Those who will see and understand, will understand; those who won't, won't.

So true John.

[Leishycat]

For what it's worth, the bakery was sued not because they refused to sell the couple a cake, but because they released the couple's contact information and encouraged people to harass them.

[hbar]

Regarding the specific issue of assuming a customer can just go to some other store if refused service at one business, this is not how it works in the real world where discrimination is not an isolated event.

When one business decides it can refuse to serve gay customers, it's likely because it exists in an area where such discrimination is typical for the community and social pressure is ubiquitous to force all businesses to conform to the status quo. Any store that gets a reputation for "catering" to the "gay agenda" will soon be subject to public boycott and will go bankrupt.

The standard answer that this is just the free market at work is wrong because it assumes that might makes right. Modern civilization cannot exist on this principle.

[espacef1fan]

What if I ask for a "Death to America" cake?

[Leishycat]

What if I ask for a "Death to America" cake?

Last I checked, terrorists aren't a protected minority anywhere. Pretty sure it's totes legal to deny service for that (and probably end up with you on an FBI watchlist or something)

[espacef1fan]

In today's current environment that is simply free speech.

I mean look at it this way. Construction companies turn down jobs all of the time with little or no reason. So do car shops. Why is it so unfair that a baker says "I dont want to"?

[Leishycat]

In today's current environment that is simply free speech.

You have the right to say 'Death to America' without the government censoring you (it can still get you heightened scrutiny though). Nobody is required to enable that speech though. Like, you could get banned from this forum for saying something a mod doesn't like, and that wouldn't be infringing on your right to free speech.

I mean look at it this way. Construction companies turn down jobs all of the time with little or no reason. So do car shops. Why is it so unfair that a baker says "I dont want to"?

It's not unfair that a baker says 'I don't want to'. It's unfair that a baker says 'I don't want to because you're gay'. Same as it wouldn't be okay for a construction company to say 'I won't build this building for you because you're Christian' or a car shop saying 'I won't work on your car because you're black'.

Do you understand the difference?

[espacef1fan]

In today's current environment that is simply free speech.

You have the right to say 'Death to America' without the government censoring you (it can still get you heightened scrutiny though). Nobody is required to enable that speech though. Like, you could get banned from this forum for saying something a mod doesn't like, and that wouldn't be infringing on your right to free speech.

I mean look at it this way. Construction companies turn down jobs all of the time with little or no reason. So do car shops. Why is it so unfair that a baker says "I dont want to"?

It's not unfair that a baker says 'I don't want to'. It's unfair that a baker says 'I don't want to because you're gay'. Same as it wouldn't be okay for a construction company to say 'I won't build this building for you because you're Christian' or a car shop saying 'I won't work on your car because you're black'.

Do you understand the difference?

Nobody is required to enable your freedom of religion, especially not by trampling their own. Do we start requiring ministers to perform ceremonies against their will. There is already discussion of that being a possibility as this sets a precedent.

There is no difference.

[DAReese]

Adam,

There is a difference. The baker is in business open to the public. They can't deny services to a protected group. Period. If they want to be exclusionary they should not be open to the public. This is truly a case of you can't have your cake and eat it too. They're either a business open to the public or they're not.

They can deny them service for all sorts of reasons, just not reasons that are protected by law. As a landlord you can deny someone an apartment because of their credit score, family size, smoking status, etc. If a pattern is determined that the real reason is because they belong to a protected group, that is when you're going to get sued.

[espacef1fan]

I guess I should be more specific on my opinion.

On the whole I agree with you about being a public business.

Refusing to make a cake is one thing.

Decorating it is where I say the battle line would need drawn. Forcing someone to write (in frosting in this case) something against their religious freedom isn't fair. The punishment should have been not getting the customers business and bad publicity(so long as its accurate, and not slander). I think it shouldn't have been accepted as a court case though as it starts setting legal precedents that are a bit like Pandoras box. In fact half or more of the civil suits in the US are likely in this category, but thats another subject......

However if its just a generic wedding cake that is just done in whatever colors and twists of frosting, then they should have made the cake. The end.