More Civil Rights Battles Using Cake

Celia Cyanide · Jan 24, 2015

Cyia said:
It's still an imperfect analogy.

If a gay couple seeks a wedding cake from a baker that sells wedding cakes, then the baker is supposed to make them a cake. Otherwise, a discrimination claim would likely be valid.

In this case, Mr. Hateful sought a hate-cake from a baker that doesn't sell hate-cakes. In essence he's seeking a service that baker doesn't provide for anyone. Therefore, he's not being discriminated against.

Well, exactly. You wouldn't go to a family oriented bakery and ask for a penis cake for a bachelorette party. If they're capable of making any other type of cake, they can make a penis cake. But they don't have to make one for you when it's not what they do.

robeiae · Jan 24, 2015

It seems to me that there are a lot of people here who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Diana Hignutt · Jan 24, 2015

robeiae said:
It seems to me that there are a lot of people here who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Let them eat cake.

Don · Jan 24, 2015

robeiae said:
It seems to me that there are a lot of people here who want to have their cake and eat it too.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anyone wanting to eat cake; it's about using the law to browbeat assholes into social compliance against their will.

I said it before and I'll say it again. No way would I ever eat a cake that was baked under duress. I'd gladly shun a baker who refused me service, and encourage a boycott, but dragging in the guns is pure silliness. I'd much rather have an asshole refuse me service than spit in my food where I can't see it happen.

Not all social issues should be solved by coercion. Not every spat between children should be settled by begging daddy to take off his belt and give the other kid a whippin'.

This is why I think free speech is so vitally important to a successful society. Assholes need to be heard so decent people can choose not to associate with them. Force the rats into hiding, and soon you'll be overrun with rats. Butchers, bakers and candlestick makers are better held to society's ideals by their customers than by putting a gun to their heads.

robeiae · Jan 24, 2015

Don said:
This has absolutely nothing to do with anyone wanting to eat cake; it's about using the law to browbeat assholes into social compliance against their will.

I said it before and I'll say it again. No way would I ever eat a cake that was baked under duress.

I agree.

Amadan · Jan 24, 2015

RichardGarfinkle said:
It's not a torturous example, because Wedding Cake is not a kind of cake; it's a use for a cake. There is a style of tiered cake that is currently fashionable at weddings. That has not always been the case, at various times and places different confections have bern used at weddings.

As I said, if it's an off-the-shelf cake, I don't think the baker should be allowed to refuse to sell it to someone just because they are gay/Christian/whatever. Just like a shoeseller couldn't refuse to sell a pair of shoes a gay couple is going to wear at their wedding.

(Well, actually I do - I think in principle businesses should still be allowed to "refuse service to anyone" - but as I also noted earlier, I know this is problematic for all the reasons that segregation was a problem. But gay people are not going to be segregated because one Christian baker won't make a wedding cake for them.)

But I think a baker should be allowed to refuse to write "God hates fags" on a cake, and to refuse to write "For John and Gary" on a wedding cake.

Don said:
This has absolutely nothing to do with anyone wanting to eat cake; it's about using the law to browbeat assholes into social compliance against their will.

I said it before and I'll say it again. No way would I ever eat a cake that was baked under duress. I'd gladly shun a baker who refused me service, and encourage a boycott, but dragging in the guns is pure silliness. I'd much rather have an asshole refuse me service than spit in my food where I can't see it happen.

Well, obviously - if they really just wanted a cake, they'd go to another baker.

Black people who demonstrated and sat in at segregated lunch counters would probably have been wise not to actually eat any soup served to them, too.

shadowwalker · Jan 24, 2015

Diana Hignutt said:
And frankly, I'd ditch the the protected status of religious people from the law. It's a choice.

Well, it is until that choice is no longer protected. Then such things as being required to belong to a particular religion in order to work get made into law. So atheists - get your Sunday Church Clothes pressed if you want an income. (This is why I say everyone's rights should be protected - not just the people's we agree with.)

Diana Hignutt · Jan 24, 2015

shadowwalker said:
Well, it is until that choice is no longer protected. Then such things as being required to belong to a particular religion in order to work get made into law. So atheists - get your Sunday Church Clothes pressed if you want an income. (This is why I say everyone's rights should be protected - not just the people's we agree with.)

meh, but forcing other people to engage in the demonstration of your beliefs, such as making someone bake a hate cake, is not and should not ever be protected. What about the baker's right to not express hate speech? It seems to me that some people are taking this beyond the simple transaction. Bakery sells cakes to everyone. Bakery doesn't make special hate cakes if they don't want to, just as they wouldn't have to sell a "Monica and Janice Together Forever: cake. It's the selling of cakes that they can't discriminate against clients , they can discriminate against the clients custom message all they like.

Lyv · Jan 24, 2015

shadowwalker said:
(This is why I say everyone's rights should be protected - not just the people's we agree with.)

Hey, me, too. Actual rights, though, not ones that do not exist.

Some people tell me they won't support the ACLU because they sided with Fred Phelps/Westboro on a freedom of speech case. That is why I support them. And it's an understatement to say I don't agree with Westboro. But it's because the ACLU was defending their right, actual right, to free speech.

Speaking of the ACLU, their Colorado office has this:

Half-Baked Complaint Alleges Discrimination Where There is None . It's a good read and concludes with:

Businesses often have standards and policies related to the products they will stock, the services they will provide, or the orders they will fill, and nothing in Colorado law prohibits that. But setting a storewide neutral policy that applies to all customers is very different from refusing service because of who the customer is. And that crucial difference is why Jack’s new claim of “discrimination” shouldn’t lead anyone to support a law that would allow businesses to discriminate against gay customers.

kuwisdelu · Jan 24, 2015

shadowwalker said:
(This is why I say everyone's rights should be protected - not just the people's we agree with.)

The problem is when people's rights clash with one another and then we are left with a "this right trumps that right" brawl. It's a basic problem with a rights-based law system.

kuwisdelu · Jan 24, 2015

Diana Hignutt said:
And frankly, I'd ditch the the protected status of religious people from the law.

If we did that I feel like we'd end up even more of a Christendom than we already are.

shadowwalker · Jan 24, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
The problem is when people's rights clash with one another and then we are left with a "this right trumps that right" brawl. It's a basic problem with a rights-based law system.

This is why I'm not siding with the baker. They are not acting as individuals in their capacity as a baker - they are operating as a business. A business's "rights" should not take precedence over the individual's (the customer's). As I mentioned earlier, if the baker was an individual who happened to bake cakes for people, then I would say she had every right to refuse. As a business, open to the public - no.

Diana Hignutt · Jan 24, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
If we did that I feel like we'd end up even more of a Christendom than we already are.

If a free exchange of ideas were possible, then perhaps the scourge of religious-based bigotry could be ended once and for all. Or you know, you could well be right. Bother.

Diana Hignutt · Jan 24, 2015

shadowwalker said:
This is why I'm not siding with the baker. They are not acting as individuals in their capacity as a baker - they are operating as a business. A business's "rights" should not take precedence over the individual's (the customer's). As I mentioned earlier, if the baker was an individual who happened to bake cakes for people, then I would say she had every right to refuse. As a business, open to the public - no.

You're still not getting it. Selling the cake that is offered to the public is a transaction for which the baker cannot legally discriminate, i.e. the baker must sell the cake to gays (even if it's a wedding cake and the baker doesn't believe in same-sex marriage), straights, PoC, Canadians, Protestants, women, men, intersexed, and trans folks. The baker can refuse to decorate a cake as they wish, they don't have to put "Matt & Geoff, Just Married" on the gay cake and they don't have to put "God Hates Gays" on the hate cake. See the difference?

Amadan · Jan 24, 2015

Diana Hignutt said:
You're still not getting it. Selling the cake that is offered to the public is a transaction for which the baker cannot legally discriminate, i.e. the baker must sell the cake to gays (even if it's a wedding cake and the baker doesn't believe in same-sex marriage), straights, PoC, Canadians, Protestants, women, men, intersexed, and trans folks. The baker can refuse to decorate a cake as they wish, they don't have to put "Matt & Geoff, Just Married" on the gay cake and they don't have to put "God Hates Gays" on the hate cake. See the difference?

I suspect that in fact most of us agree on this point and have not been realizing it.

I don't think a baker should be able to say "I will not sell you a wedding cake because you are gay." (With caveats I've already mentioned.)

I do think a baker should be able to say "I will not write 'Matt & Geoff' on your wedding cake," even if the baker would write "Matt & Geraldine."

backslashbaby · Jan 24, 2015

Amadan said:
I suspect that in fact most of us agree on this point and have not been realizing it.

I don't think a baker should be able to say "I will not sell you a wedding cake because you are gay." (With caveats I've already mentioned.)

I do think a baker should be able to say "I will not write 'Matt & Geoff' on your wedding cake," even if the baker would write "Matt & Geraldine."

My personal feelings aren't covered by the law, but I did believe that the law would protect certain things written on the cakes, like 'Matt & Geoff' (in most states), yes. Same with 'Happy Confirmation' and other phrases that have to do with protected class status. But that article by the lawyer linked a couple of times casts doubt on that. Of course, I mean for a bakery that offers custom writing.

My personal feelings are that sole proprietorships and partnerships that use SSNs instead of federal tax ID numbers that have sales under a certain (small) amount should have the right to refuse service or products to anyone. I'd except rental contracts and the like, of course, and if they were the only seller within a certain radius, too.

Then, larger, more public (as to ownership) companies would have to write or serve pretty much anything, adding a freedom of speech kind of idea in there. Serving the public means the good, bad and ugly, imho, at that level of sales.

I'd except artistic endeavors like photographers (and sculptors, writers, etc). Their freedom of expression needs to be preserved, even though they do it for a living for the public, imho. Most of them probably don't fit the business criteria I mentioned anyway, but there are some large companies, too, so the artistic expression part needs to be spelled out, I think.

shadowwalker · Jan 24, 2015

Diana Hignutt said:
You're still not getting it.

No, you're not getting it. Offering to put a message on the cake is part of the service offered. If, unlike many stores which have a catalog of specific decorations available to choose from, the baker is saying they do custom decorating, then they should have to do exactly that, regardless of whether or not they agree with the wording or imagery. The decorating is part of providing the cake, part of their business, not something extraneous done under the table for special people. If they want to pick and choose what they are willing to put on cakes, then build a catalog and say to customers, "These are your choices. Period.".

Lyv · Jan 24, 2015

shadowwalker said:
Offering to put a message on the cake is part of the service offered

And the baker can refuse a particular message as long as no one gets that message.

Again:

Businesses often have standards and policies related to the products they will stock, the services they will provide, or the orders they will fill, and nothing in Colorado law prohibits that. But setting a storewide neutral policy that applies to all customers is very different from refusing service because of who the customer is. And that crucial difference is why Jack’s new claim of “discrimination” shouldn’t lead anyone to support a law that would allow businesses to discriminate against gay customers.

Diana's got it. You don't.

shadowwalker · Jan 24, 2015

Lyv said:
Diana's got it. You don't.

"But setting a storewide neutral policy that applies to all customers is very different from refusing service because of who the customer is. And that crucial difference is why Jack’s new claim of “discrimination” shouldn’t lead anyone to support a law that would allow businesses to discriminate against gay customers."

And how discriminating based on belief is somehow equivalent to being able to discriminate against gays - say what?

But sure. Support the idea that people have rights only if you agree with them. That's worked so well for us in the past...

Celia Cyanide · Jan 24, 2015

This is not about belief at all. I doubt this guy even believed what he wanted written on the cake. He just wanted to see what would happen.

kuwisdelu · Jan 24, 2015

But what does the cake believe?

Lyv · Jan 24, 2015

shadowwalker said:
But sure. Support the idea that people have rights only if you agree with them. That's worked so well for us in the past...

Are you directing that at me?

Cyia · Jan 24, 2015

The baker never refused the man service. She offered him a cake. She offered him the exact cake he wanted. She refused to write on it, but offered him the utensils to do the writing himself.

Lyv · Jan 24, 2015

Celia Cyanide said:
This is not about belief at all. I doubt this guy even believed what he wanted written on the cake. He just wanted to see what would happen.

True. It was clearly orchestrated. The rush of anti-gay folks to support Azucar while making a false equivalency to the other cases shows that.

And it still wouldn't be a problem if it were about belief, since he wasn't refused because of his religion, race, age, or other protected class.

Diana Hignutt · Jan 24, 2015

Lyv said:
True. It was clearly orchestrated. The rush of anti-gay folks to support Azucar while making a false equivalency to the other cases shows that.

And it still wouldn't be a problem if it were about belief, since he wasn't refused because of his religion, race, age, or other protected class.

I think the argument is that his beliefs are representative of his religion. I disagree with that interpretation, myself.

More Civil Rights Battles Using Cake

Joker Groupie

Touch and go

Very Tired

All Living is Local

Touch and go

empty-nester!

Very Tired

I meant to do that.

Revolutionize the World

Revolutionize the World

empty-nester!

Very Tired

Very Tired

~~~~*~~~~

empty-nester!

I meant to do that.

empty-nester!

Joker Groupie

Revolutionize the World

I meant to do that.

Rewriting My Destiny

I meant to do that.

Very Tired

*