Denver bakery won't be forced to make "anti-gay" cakes

[Firethorn]

I still see the distinction that the person refusing to make the cake is refusing to make that kind of cake for everyone.  Hence no discrimination.  The other baker is perfectly willing to make wedding cakes, just not for gay weddings.  So discrimination.

This is the way I see it.  If, as a baker, I refuse to bake wedding cakes, period, I'm covered from having to bake one for a gay wedding.  Who knows, maybe I don't bake cakes at all.  Maybe it's because all I do are 1/2 sheet cakes and smaller, basically good for a civil wedding with a dozen attendees, and I have this printer thingy that does the decorating, so not exactly fancy.

I stick a policy up on the wall 'Too complex requests will be declined, no negative messages*, no violating federal discrimination laws'.

On the other hand, with the latter situation I might be 'forced' to make a simple cake for the gay 'wedding' that's a pure civil service with a dozen or so friends.  In which case, if I was operating a bakery, especially given the news, I'd sell them their cake.  Not worth the hassle, and their money spends just as good.

*The cancer test was negative! Congratuations!  would probably be okay. 

[Balog]

Who decides what constitutes a "negative" message? How is "I refuse to bake a cake with a message I don't support" not applicable to a situation where the cake celebrates (and thus has a message endorsing) a situation I do not support?

[lupinus]

Meh, I don't see "you will serve them or you will close your doors" as much of a choice in the matter.

If a baker, or a DJ, or a planner, or whatever doesn't want to take part in or provide a service to your ceremony they shouldn't be forced to regardless of the reason.

[Ron]

Meh, I don't see "you will serve them or you will close your doors" as much of a choice in the matter.

If a baker, or a DJ, or a planner, or whatever doesn't want to take part in or provide a service to your ceremony they shouldn't be forced to regardless of the reason.

So simple yet it seems the majority in our nation disagree with us.

[SADShooter]

So simple yet it seems the majority in of vocal advocates and the media in our nation disagree with us.

FTFY.

[dogmush]

FTFY.

No, I think Ron had it right. The country is pretty split on the gay marrage issue right now, but if you asked a good sample of Americans if they thought a lunch counter owner should be willing to refuse to serve black folks, a vast majority of Americans would be OK with a law preventing that.  That that same law can then be expanded to include other groups wouldn't cross their mind.

The majority of our nation disagrees with most of us here on the concept of freedom of association.

[SADShooter]

I don't disagree that we're moving, inexorably, in that direction, but I think that the perception of an overwhelming majority is overstated. It would hardly be the first time I could be proven wrong.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

No, I think Ron had it right. The country is pretty split on the gay marrage issue right now, but if you asked a good sample of Americans if they thought a lunch counter owner should be willing to refuse to serve black folks, a vast majority of Americans would be OK with a law preventing that.  That that same law can then be expanded to include other groups wouldn't cross their mind.

The majority of our nation disagrees with most of us here on the concept of freedom of association.

False analogy.

[dogmush]

Not making an analogy.  Lupinus said "regardless of the reason".  Ron thought the majority would support that. I mearly pointed out that there are reasons that the (I think) majority of the country supports disallowing by law.

I would point out that it's the same anti-discrimination laws that started with black folks at lunch counters that are being expanded and applied in the cases we are discussing.  Not really an analogy there either, though I'm not sure what you would call that.  Remember, in CO, Sexual Orientation is a named, protected class.  Right there with race.

[SADShooter]

So, a couple walks into a photography studio wanting portraits, and the photographer says "sure, pose in front of this backdrop".

The couple then asks the photographer to document their wedding ceremony. The photographer says "I prefer not to for X reason".

Is there a legitimate distinction under a public accommodation standard?

[dogmush]

So, a couple walks into a photography studio wanting portraits, and the photographer says "sure, pose in front of this backdrop".

The couple then asks the photographer to document their wedding ceremony. The photographer says "I prefer not to for X reason".

Is there a legitimate distinction under a public accommodation standard?

My opinion? or my opinion of what the law says?

Mine?  Sure.  I already said I thought he should be free to contract or not at his pleasure.

What the law says?  Depends.  Does he offer wedding photography to other couples?  What was "X Reason".  Is whatever "X" was in his state (or federal) law as a protected class?  These would matter.

[Blakenzy]

This story makes me think that people in 'merica have entirely too much time on their hands...

cake

[zxcvbob]

No, I think Ron had it right. The country is pretty split on the gay marrage issue right now, but if you asked a good sample of Americans if they thought a lunch counter owner should be willing to refuse to serve black folks, a vast majority of Americans would be OK with a law preventing that.  That that same law can then be expanded to include other groups wouldn't cross their mind.

The majority of our nation disagrees with most of us here on the concept of freedom of association.

"Black" is not a protected class that one can opt in and out of as it's convenient.

[SADShooter]

My opinion? or my opinion of what the law says?

Mine?  Sure.  I already said I thought he should be free to contract or not at his pleasure.

What the law says?  Depends.  Does he offer wedding photography to other couples?  What was "X Reason".  Is whatever "X" was in his state (or federal) law as a protected class?  These would matter.

I can't currently open the Denver article, but my understanding of the Indiana law is that it gave the vendor recourse to a hearing if the questions you pose were ambiguous or undetermined, rather than a blanket exemption to refuse service. Thus, the uproar and backlash is ostensibly in response to creating an avenue to address individual cases where the law is uncertain.

My example was to illustrate that circumstances could vary in interactions between the same people over similar but not identical scenarios. It seems to me this is why we have courts, and what these laws are broadly intended to address, including the Federal statute Bill Clinton signed in 1993.

ETA: In my example the on-premises photography is commerce, while the off-premises photography is, in my opinion, indentured servitude.

[Ron]

False analogy.

Are you implying the left isn't equating the current homosexual push for "equal rights" with the civil rights movement?

Or are you saying that despite what they claim it is a false analogy?

For better or worse a large exception has been carved out of the freedom of association. The civil rights movement was used to pretty much gut it as a protected right.

Once those who identify themselves by their alternative sexuality become part of the protected victim class their new "rights" will end up trumping freedom of religion. It is happening already.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Are you implying the left isn't equating the current homosexual push for "equal rights" with the civil rights movement?

Or are you saying that despite what they claim it is a false analogy?

For better or worse a large exception has been carved out of the freedom of association. The civil rights movement was used to pretty much gut it as a protected right.

I'm saying that lunch counter owners refusing to seat blacks is not a fair analogy to the Christian baker choosing not to make gay wedding cakes. 

As a rule, Christian bakers happily sell their baked goods to everyone equally.  Gay people and straight people and trans people and bi people and anyone else can buy all the same goods and services from Christian bakers without discrimination.

Undoubtedly the left is trying to equate gay marriage with the old civil rights movement.  But it's a false analogy to what's happening today.  Blacks in the segregation era could not shop at the same places whites could not shop, nor buy the same goods.

Once those who identify themselves by their alternative sexuality become part of the protected victim class their new "rights" will end up trumping freedom of religion. It is happening already.

Absolutely. 

Unlike the civil rights era, where blacks just wanted the same access to society that whites had, gays today are demanding special rights even including the power to strip others of their religious freedoms.  And lots people support it, even many who otherwise value liberty.

This is how freedom dies, to the cheering of the mob.

[dogmush]

HTG, I see what you're saying, but you'll need to argue that analagy with the left, their the ones making it.  I simple mentioned lunch counters as a buisness association that the majority are in favor of regulating.

Also, I do have to mention at this juncture that it's been my experiance that "Christians" don't all do a dang thing happily.  That's half y'all's problem.  No one can agree on anything.  There's plenty of Christans that not only would bake a gay wedding cake, but go to and officiate a gay wedding.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm not arguing the analogy with you, nor saying it's your analogy.  It's a false analogy, that's all I'm sayin'.  

Christians disagree on all sorts of stuff, sure, but generally not on things like this.  I've never seen a Christian business turn someone away without good reason.  Never even heard someone suggest it, and in fact I'd expect most Christians to be against it if the situation ever came up.  

Granted, with so many of us out there, I'm sure some Christians somewhere might do it, but they'd be the exception that proves the rule.

[dogmush]

I'm not arguing the analogy with you, nor saying it's your analogy.  It's a false analogy, that's all I'm sayin'.  

Gotcha.

Christians disagree on all sorts of stuff, sure, but generally not on things like this.  I've never seen a Christian business turn someone away without good reason.  Never even heard someone suggest it, and in fact I'd expect most Christians to be against it if the situation ever came up.  

Granted, with so many of us out there, I'm sure some Christians somewhere might do it, but they'd be the exception that proves the rule.

I have. To me. But it is what it is.  I'm not going to try to quantify how big a slice of Christianity they might have been.

There is a pretty good slice of Christianity supporting the whole gay marriage mess however.

[Balog]

Really depends on how one defines "Christian." There are people whose stated belief system is explicitly atheist who still claim to be Christian. 

[Blakenzy]

I believe in cake. Cake should not be defaced in any manner. Either a pristine white icing, or deep undisturbed chocolate frosting. i'm suing to preserve the purity of cake. Damn you unbelievers who try to write all over cake. I'm going to use the legal system to force other people to do cake things my cake way. Oh my, this is so caking important.

[dogmush]

Really depends on how one defines "Christian." There are people whose stated belief system is explicitly atheist who still claim to be Christian. 

Presbyterian.


Apropos of nothing, this story was on my local news today at lunch.  

http://touch.orlandosentinel.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83228088/

[lupinus]

Eh.

It's not like being heretical is anything new among Christians.

[Balog]

Presbyterian.


Apropos of nothing, this story was on my local news today at lunch.  

http://touch.orlandosentinel.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83228088/

Presbyterians refused you service for your religious beliefs? That's odd, I know there are schisms in the denominations but they tend to be one of the most God-lite, semi Unitarian denominations out there. http://www.mlp.org/

Also, didn't the Indiana pizza place get something like $850,000 from their gofundme?

[dogmush]

Presbyterians refused you service for your religious beliefs? That's odd, I know there are schisms in the denominations but they tend to be one of the most God-lite, semi Unitarian denominations out there. http://www.mlp.org/

Also, didn't the Indiana pizza place get something like $850,000 from their gofundme?

Oh no, I read that wrong.  Presbyterian's are the one's OK with Gay Marriage.  Baptists refused me service.