Bakery faces complaint for refusing to write anti-gay message on cake

[turtlespeed 221]

Bolas

***>A person asks for a swastika cake. They claim (and have their religion's holy book
>passages to back him up) that it's a symbol of their religion.

"We don't do swastikas." - OK
"We don't serve people of your religion." - not OK

>Another person asks for a bible cake with one of the anti gay passages written on it.

"We don't do passages from books." - OK
"We don't do passages from the Bible. But the Koran is just fine." - marginal, probably not OK. (Which is what courts are for.)
"We don't serve Christians." - not OK

By that logic:
"We don't put two names of the same sex or multiple bride/groom figurines on cakes" - OK

They can give the figurines to the coupke and have them install them.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Bolas 5]

turtlespeed

******>A person asks for a swastika cake. They claim (and have their religion's holy book
>passages to back him up) that it's a symbol of their religion.

"We don't do swastikas." - OK
"We don't serve people of your religion." - not OK

>Another person asks for a bible cake with one of the anti gay passages written on it.

"We don't do passages from books." - OK
"We don't do passages from the Bible. But the Koran is just fine." - marginal, probably not OK. (Which is what courts are for.)
"We don't serve Christians." - not OK

By that logic:
"We don't put two names of the same sex or multiple bride/groom figurines on cakes" - OK

They can give the figurines to the coupke and have them install them.

After making them buy two sets of course...

Or they choose to only stock and sell attached hetero couple figurines.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[turtlespeed 221]

Bolas

*********>A person asks for a swastika cake. They claim (and have their religion's holy book
>passages to back him up) that it's a symbol of their religion.

"We don't do swastikas." - OK
"We don't serve people of your religion." - not OK

>Another person asks for a bible cake with one of the anti gay passages written on it.

"We don't do passages from books." - OK
"We don't do passages from the Bible. But the Koran is just fine." - marginal, probably not OK. (Which is what courts are for.)
"We don't serve Christians." - not OK

By that logic:
"We don't put two names of the same sex or multiple bride/groom figurines on cakes" - OK

They can give the figurines to the coupke and have them install them.

After making them buy two sets of course...

Or they choose to only stock and sell attached hetero couple figurines.

LOL I misread the statement.

I read it as "and sell the attached hereto"

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[funjumper101 15]

Bolas

***What if they simply apply the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

Let people and private businesses choose who they do business with and then let the market decide? That's just crazy talk.

Didn't one of the Senators from Kentucky, the orthodondist with a famous racist father, get in trouble for uttering similar ridiculous ideas?

It seems that both the Senator and the poster, as well as the rest of the ignorant Reich WIng Conservatives, do not unsderstand the legal concept of "Public Accomodations".

I know that it is asking quite a lot for the ignorant to educate themselves, especially when the new knowledge will conflict with strongly held opinions.

[turtlespeed 221]

funjumper101

I know that it is asking quite a lot for the ignorant to educate themselves, especially when the new knowledge will conflict with strongly held opinions.

You describe yourself so accurately. Thanks for saving our time.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[cgriff 0]

funjumper101

It seems that both the Senator and the poster, as well as the rest of the ignorant Reich WIng Conservatives, do not unsderstand the legal concept of "Public Accomodations".

Wondered how long it would be until someone decided this discussion was entirely too logical and needed some American political blinders bullshit thrown in...

It IS possible to understand the concept of "Public Accomodations" and disagree with it without belonging to the Republican party. It's even possible for some people who DO belong to the Republican party or the Democrat party to discuss their ideas civilly and honestly (although I will grant you, it's rare).

Now, to return to the point, yes, it is unfortunate that if left to their own devices, some people are racist assholes. Sadly, when we look to the government and the law to "fix" that problem, you get new problems. Either we have freedom of association, or we don't. This half-way crap quite clearly doesn't work. There is no legitimate authority to prohibit people from associating (doing business, marrying, whatever) with whomever they want. The corollary is there's no legitimate authority to require people to associate (doing business, marrying, whatever) with whomever they don't want.

Will racist assholes still be racist assholes? Yes, sadly, they will. There's no cure for that but time and constant pressure from the rest of society...

[TriGirl 319]

wolfriverjoe

***
...As for the other bakery that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding -- they knew up front what the order was for, and chose not to take the business. If that bakery wanted to sell just the cake and let the patrons write in the names of the couple, perhaps that patron would have accepted the compromise (assuming there was writing requested on that cake). Regardless, that bakery chose not to take the job. Their loss. IIRC, someone else was happy to take the business. Problem solved.

Not exactly.

If they make wedding cakes for other couples, but refuse to make them for a gay couple (or a black couple or a Jewish couple or an Islamic couple or whatever), it's discrimination.

If they refuse to write a hateful message on a cake (no matter who the hate is directed at) it's simply refusing business.

It's the refusing service based on the group that the refused customer belongs to that makes it discrimination. Yeah, I see your point (as billvon also illustrated above). Learning point for me, thanks.

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[jakee 1,497]

cgriff

Now, to return to the point, yes, it is unfortunate that if left to their own devices, some people are racist assholes. Sadly, when we look to the government and the law to "fix" that problem, you get new problems.

Well, like what?

You can't have whites and blacks restrooms anymore, or seating areas in diners, or denial of service based on race at all. What are the new problems that directly result from that?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[BIGUN 1,317]

Guess she should have had a "Scope of Work" document for her cakes that had a clause just above the signature that stated:

DISCRIMINATORY MESSAGES: We will not write any "ANTI" messages on our cakes. For example, Anti-Black, Anti-Jew, Anti-Gay, Anti-White, Anti-Muslim or any other messages that could be deemed as "hateful speech."

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Talking and excessive yelling in movie theaters.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[billvon 2,995]

>"We don't put two names of the same sex or multiple bride/groom figurines on cakes" - OK

Not OK, because that is specific to gay marriage. Just as it would not be OK if they did little figurines with white icing but refused to use brown icing on their faces - because explicitly targets race.

However, if they refuse to use the name "Chris" or "Pat" that's fine - provided they do that for both sorts of couples.

[normiss 801]

Unless they're Oklahomaphobic

[Bolas 5]

billvon

>"We don't put two names of the same sex or multiple bride/groom figurines on cakes" - OK

Not OK, because that is specific to gay marriage. Just as it would not be OK if they did little figurines with white icing but refused to use brown icing on their faces - because explicitly targets race.

However, if they refuse to use the name "Chris" or "Pat" that's fine - provided they do that for both sorts of couples.

Just as refusing to put certain words or make certain shapes such as a swastika could be viewed also as specific target discrimination.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Bolas

***>"We don't put two names of the same sex or multiple bride/groom figurines on cakes" - OK

Not OK, because that is specific to gay marriage. Just as it would not be OK if they did little figurines with white icing but refused to use brown icing on their faces - because explicitly targets race.

However, if they refuse to use the name "Chris" or "Pat" that's fine - provided they do that for both sorts of couples.

Just as refusing to put certain words or make certain shapes such as a swastika could be viewed also as specific target discrimination.

No.

Only if such a refusal is reserved for certain groups.

[BillyVance 34]

SkyDekker

******>"We don't put two names of the same sex or multiple bride/groom figurines on cakes" - OK

Not OK, because that is specific to gay marriage. Just as it would not be OK if they did little figurines with white icing but refused to use brown icing on their faces - because explicitly targets race.

However, if they refuse to use the name "Chris" or "Pat" that's fine - provided they do that for both sorts of couples.

Just as refusing to put certain words or make certain shapes such as a swastika could be viewed also as specific target discrimination.

No.

Only if such a refusal is reserved for certain groups.

How about the Arkansas gun range refusing to allow a small group of Muslim men that were speaking Arabic and carrying on like middle east muslims do, to try out some guns on the range?

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Would depend on the rationalization.

If they refused ebcause they were unable to communicate safety regulations, precuations, expectations etc effectively I don't see that as discrimination.

However if their reasoning was along the lines of, they look muslim, therefor I refuse....then it would be discrimination.

[champu 1]

Customer: "I'd like ein swastika cake."

Baker: "Wait a second... you're not a jew are you?"

Customer: "Nein"

Baker: "Okay then, coming right up."

[jakee 1,497]

Bolas

Just as refusing to put certain words or make certain shapes such as a swastika could be viewed also as specific target discrimination.

Yeah, but only in the same way as when you screw up your eyes and squint real hard a cloud can be viewed as a unicorn or a piece of burnt toast can be viewed as the image if Jesus.

It's like, sure when you put the effort in there's a kind of resemblance, but when you relax again you realise it's just toast.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,995]

>Just as refusing to put certain words or make certain shapes such as a swastika could
>be viewed also as specific target discrimination.

No. Refusing to make a swastika cake - not discrimination.
Refusing to make a swastika cake only if 80 year old Germans ask - discrimination.
Refusing to make a Star of David cake - not discrimination.
Refusing to make a Star of David cake only if Jews ask - discrimination.

This is really pretty simple. The one thing you cannot do is deny a service to someone based on their race, skin color, religion, sex, sexual orientation etc. You are perfectly free to deny a given service to everyone.

[Bolas 5]

billvon

>Just as refusing to put certain words or make certain shapes such as a swastika could
>be viewed also as specific target discrimination.

No. Refusing to make a swastika cake - not discrimination.
Refusing to make a swastika cake only if 80 year old Germans ask - discrimination.
Refusing to make a Star of David cake - not discrimination.
Refusing to make a Star of David cake only if Jews ask - discrimination.

This is really pretty simple. The one thing you cannot do is deny a service to someone based on their race, skin color, religion, sex, sexual orientation etc. You are perfectly free to deny a given service to everyone.

How many are asking for swastika cakes? Likely have only had the one request that was denied so unless they show some prior policy discrimination or targeting can't be disproved.

But we're still stuck in the same circular argument that forcing people and businesses to cater to others does have some unintended consequences.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,995]

>How many are asking for swastika cakes? Likely have only had the one request that
>was denied so unless they show some prior policy discrimination or targeting can't be
>disproved.

Probably true. Which is why so many places have a list of things they will and won't make.

>But we're still stuck in the same circular argument that forcing people and
>businesses to cater to others does have some unintended consequences.

In some cases, yes. ANY law - even a law guaranteeing freedom from discrimination - comes with negative consequences, since someone's behavior can be restricted by it.

[grue 1]

It should be readily apparent that the issue is not of discrimination, but of de facto support.

That they are willing to make even shitlords such as these a cake, just not one that will associate their company with a message that they do not agree with, should make it abundantly clear that they are not discriminating, simply seeking not to be seen as endorsing speech.

I'll sell you my old car even if I know with certainty you are going to write "I HATE JEWS" on it in red paint. I will not, however, write it for you.

cavete terrae.

[jakee 1,497]

Bolas

How many are asking for swastika cakes? Likely have only had the one request that was denied so unless they show some prior policy discrimination or targeting can't be disproved.

Yeah, but there's nothing to prove it either.

Quote

But we're still stuck in the same circular argument that forcing people and businesses to cater to others does have some unintended consequences.

Correction, you're still stuck in it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,027]

champu

Customer: "I'd like ein swastika cake."

Baker: "Wait a second... you're not a jew are you?"

Customer: "Nein"

Baker: "Okay then, coming right up."

Customer: "I am not a racialist, but, und this is a big but, we in the National Bocialist Party believe das Überleben muss gestammen sein mit der schneaky Armstrong-Jones. Historische Colorado ist Volkermeinig von Deutschland."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]>But we're still stuck in the same circular argument that forcing people and
>businesses to cater to others does have some unintended consequences.

In some cases, yes. ANY law - even a law guaranteeing freedom from discrimination - comes with negative consequences, since someone's behavior can be restricted by it.