More Civil Rights Battles Using Cake

This is a lot like the discussion we had here post-Charlie-Hebdo. It seems that free speech is terrifically important for Me, but not so much for You. Unless I agree with what You're saying, in which case - it's fine.

ETA: I don't have an answer, beyond - Manners, everyone!

I don't get how it is religious discrimination when the baker wouldn't make that cake for anyone. It's not because the person is a Christian. She wouldn't make that cake for an atheist or Muslim.

Of course, compare this case to the Oregon case where a religious bakery was ruled guilty of violating the civil rights of a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

Click to expand...

Ok. It's apples and oranges. The Colorado baker wouldn't make that particular cake for anyone. The Oregon baker didn't refuse because of content, but because of the sexual orientation of the customers. If you would make the same cake for one couple but not the other, it's discrimination according to state law.

I think maybe if the bakeries made explicit attempts to advertise their services and what kind of goods they provide that would be a major step. If the Colorado bakery advertised that it was a business designed to respect all viewpoints and a GLBTQ friendly place and the Oregon business advertised that it was explicitly designed for marriages for a specific denomination, then in both cases I would not be able to find any reasons to truly object to what they were doing. if they took the responsibility to market themselves that way and still had someone trying to pressure them to do otherwise, then yes I would have to suspect they have ulterior, less than benevolent motives. As for the Hebdo case, well, I mean, the fact that people in Western nations are free to be complete tools sometimes sucks really, really hard. No doubt. But I think we have gotten a new understanding of just how much worse the alternative is.

One thing I agree with backslashbaby 100 % on: in the end they really are just cakes. There should not be a need to make this damn big a deal over them.

backslashbaby said:

I agree with you, actually.

But if you wouldn't make a cake for 'anyone' who wanted certain religious verses, for instance, I think that crosses the line into religious discrimination. But this guy's views aren't religious enough to be protected, imho, because he's a few steps removed from any actual scripture.

Click to expand...

That's not the case here, though. "God hates gays" isn't a Bible verse. Now, I'll grant you, there are numerous verses that ugly, so perhaps the next cake will be one of those verses that quotes God saying gays and atheists and witches yada yada should be killed, but that's hypothetical at this point. In this case, it wasn't a Bible verse that was the problem.

Being selective about the content you write on your cakes isn't religious discrimination.

Not making someone a cake at all because they're Christian would be.

But that's not what happened.

kuwisdelu said:

Being selective about the content you write on your cake isn't religious discrimination.

Click to expand...

This. I'd have thought it was more a free speech thing.

ETA: "It's my cake, and I have a right to have anything I want written on it!"

mccardey said:

This. I'd have thought it was more a free speech thing.

Click to expand...

I don't see this as having anything to do with free speech.

kuwisdelu said:

I don't see this as having anything to do with free speech.

Click to expand...

Isn't the issue that someone refused to replicate a statement on behalf of a paying customer and has had a complaint filed against them for doing so? If it's unlikely to get traction under a religious canopy, doesn't it then become an issue of Free Speech?

I'm just asking because I don't know. I thought that would be the likely next step.

Putting something on a Bible-shaped cake doesn't make it religious, actually it doesn't even make it a Bible-shape unless the word Bible is on it, somewhere. The bakery wasn't refusing to make a cake, and it wasn't refusing to put scripture on the cake, and it wasn't enforcing a "no [insert religious preference]" policy. That's not a religious objection.

kuwisdelu said:

Being selective about the content you write on your cakes isn't religious discrimination.

Not making someone a cake at all because they're Christian would be.

But that's not what happened.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with this. That's why I thought it would move to free speech.

mccardey said:

Isn't the issue that someone refused to replicate a statement on behalf of a paying customer and has had a complaint filed against them for doing so? If it's unlikely to get traction under a religious canopy, doesn't it then become an issue of Free Speech?

I'm just asking because I don't know. I thought that would be the likely next step.

Click to expand...

Not in the US, because it's not the government restricting the speech.

I don't know if other countries protect speech against private censorship too.

In the US, free speech only protects against government censorship.

kuwisdelu said:

Not in the US, because it's not the government restricting the speech.

I don't know if other countries protect speech against private censorship too.

In the US, free speech only protects against government censorship.

Click to expand...

Ah!

That makes sense.

To me, this whole thing reeks of a set up. The customer didn't really want a cake; he wanted the bakery to refuse to write hate speech so that he could bring a suit against them for religious discrimination.

As for free speech, what if the guy wanted obscene messages scrolled across his cake? What if he went to a Jewish owned bakery and demanded a swastika decoration? The baker offered not only to make the cake for him, she offered icing, an icing bag and tip so that he could write whatever message he wished. You think the bakery owner should be forced to write it herself?

I almost guarantee this guy is part of the Christians are persecuted and discriminated against crowd. Utter bullshit.

I saw the baker interviewed on TV. A delightful and lovely woman.

rugcat said:

I saw the baker interviewed on TV. A delightful and lovely woman.

Click to expand...

I didn't - but I'm entirely on her side. I'd have done the same thing.

backslashbaby said:

"Complaint: Baker refused to write anti-gay words on cake"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/01/20/azucar-bakery-anti-gay-words-cake/22061115/I'm starting to feel really sorry for bakeries, first off.

But it's an interesting question. I think the guy is obviously an asshat, but are those 'religious views' protected for businesses not to discriminate against?

Click to expand...

I don't think you can (or should be allowed to) refuse to serve someone based on race, creed, religion, orientation, gender and so on. But that doesn't mean they can dictate the nature of the service you provide or the nature of the product you're selling.

Can a vegan go to a bakery and claim discrimination if they don't happen to have any cakes that lack eggs and butter?

Or should a meat eater be able to go to a vegan bakery and bitch that he's being discriminated against because there aren't any cakes with eggs and butter in them?

Should couple (gay or straight) be able to go to a bakery and ask that they put a picture of them engaged on a sex act on their wedding cake, then scream discrimination against their orientation if the baker says she's not comfortable doing this?

Should a militant atheist be able to demand that a baker decorate a cake with sayings that imply that Christians are evil?

Should a gay couple be able to go to a bakery and sue the baker for discrimination because they don't carry same-gender couple cake toppers (though they're still willing to provide them with a cake for their wedding)?

Should a member of the American Nazi Party be able to demand a cake with anti-Jewish hate speech on it.

I'd say no in all these cases.

If this case leads to anything, it will likely be a disclaimer displayed in bakeries and other such places stating that they will not decorate cakes (or whatever) with words or images that are derogatory towards any group of people.

Yeah, I think there's a fundamental difference between refusing to serve someone because of the religion (or sexual orientation, or similar trait), and not being willing to fulfill a specific request.

If a bakery refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple, they're discriminating against them. If make the cake but don't have same-gender cake toppers to provide, I can live with that. If they refuse to bake a cake that looks like a rainbow exploded all over it and that features a lot of gay pride symbols lovingly crafted out of fondant, I also don't think that's necessarily discriminatory (though if they refused out of homophobia, I would think they're bigots). And if a gay couple wanted a cake that expressed a hateful message, like "God hates straight people," I would think the bakery is more than justified in refusing to make that.

Also, what if the bakers themselves were Christians, and felt that the "God hates gays" message infringed upon their beliefs? What then? Believing that God hates gays isn't an inherently Christian belief/message, thank goodness. It's a belief that some Christians hold. Wanting a cake to say "Jesus is the Son of God" would be a Christian cake.

The problem here is the content. Not the person requesting it.

It sounds like this person decided to order this cake just to try to prove a point or be contrary, but like most homophobes, they don't get what the point actually is.

rugcat said:

To me, this whole thing reeks of a set up. The customer didn't really want a cake; he wanted the bakery to refuse to write hate speech so that he could bring a suit against them for religious discrimination.
(snip) The baker offered not only to make the cake for him, she offered icing, an icing bag and tip so that he could write whatever message he wished. You think the bakery owner should be forced to write it herself?

Click to expand...

And this struck me as odd:

Silva says Jack pulled out a piece of paper with phrases like "God hates gays" and requested her to write them on his cakes.
He wouldn't let employees make a copy of the paper and would not read the words out loud, Silva claims.

Click to expand...

Almost as though there's some sort of a legal quibble that he's about to make, or doesn't want someone else to make about him? He doesn't want evidence? He can claim he was misquoted? He thinks if he says the words they can get him for hate speech?
Ass-hattery of some sort, I suspect.
Why didn't he just go to a Wal-Mart:

There was also the "Adolf" swastika cake that a bakery refused to decorate (and a Walmart did make) for that Nazi family.

Click to expand...

Apparently they're up for anything.

Roxxsmom said:

If this case leads to anything, it will likely be a disclaimer displayed in bakeries and other such places stating that they will not decorate cakes (or whatever) with words or images that are derogatory towards any group of people.

Click to expand...

That cake needs a disclaimer--especially one along the lines of "it's wrong to incorporate sweet dessert foods into your hatred for your fellow man"--is why humanity can't have nice things.

mccardey said:

This. I'd have thought it was more a free speech thing.

ETA: "It's my cake, and I have a right to have anything I want written on it!"

Click to expand...

It's not your cake until you've paid for it, or until you've made it yourself. Then you can write anything on it you like.

BethS said:

It's not your cake until you've paid for it, or until you've made it yourself. Then you can write anything on it you like.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm wondering if that was the argument.

rugcat said:

To me, this whole thing reeks of a set up. The customer didn't really want a cake; he wanted the bakery to refuse to write hate speech so that he could bring a suit against them for religious discrimination.

Click to expand...

It was a set-up. It was meant to prove that a double-standard exists when it comes to discrimination based on religious views.

I.e., a baker refuses to make a cake for a gay couple because, according to the baker's religious beliefs, gay marriage is immoral. Baker is sued and fined, and forced to either make the wedding cake, or close the business.

vs.

A baker refuses to put writing on a cake that the baker finds offensive. Customer files a lawsuit, in the hopes that the lawsuit will fail, and that baker will be lauded as a hero for having taken a stand against the nasty, hate-mongering customer.

The point that the customer was trying to make is that when it comes to prosecuting (civilly or legally) cases like this, a double-standard exists depending on whether or not the baker takes a stand based on a societally approved viewpoint.

Whether or not such a double-standard exists, I don't think this was a particularly good way to go about proving it.