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

[Bolas 5]

Or simply remove religion, a choice one makes and they can change that is not DNA based, from discrimination protection.

Quote

based on their gender (DNA), orientation (DNA), race (DNA)' or religion (individual choice)

Individuals with disabilities would still of course be protected as they can't just arbitrarily choose to no longer be.

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

[grue 1]

Bolas

Or simply remove religion, a choice one makes and they can change that is not DNA based, from discrimination protection.

Quote

based on their gender (DNA), orientation (DNA), race (DNA)' or religion (individual choice)

Individuals with disabilities would still of course be protected as they can't just arbitrarily choose to no longer be.

I think we've already got enough legal discrimination against atheists in this country, I'd prefer to still be able to shop at whatever store I want instead of having that taken away too.

cavete terrae.

[turtlespeed 221]

normiss

Unless they're Oklahomaphobic

Damn, that makes me want to punch her right in the fucking face!

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]

grue

***Or simply remove religion, a choice one makes and they can change that is not DNA based, from discrimination protection.

Quote

based on their gender (DNA), orientation (DNA), race (DNA)' or religion (individual choice)

Individuals with disabilities would still of course be protected as they can't just arbitrarily choose to no longer be.

I think we've already got enough legal discrimination against atheists in this country, I'd prefer to still be able to shop at whatever store I want instead of having that taken away too.

Translation: "Eat Chik-Fil-A and shop at Hobby Lobby"

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

[ryoder 1,590]

normiss

Unless they're Oklahomaphobic

Meh;
Those Okies don't even recognize a fruit when they see one:http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/watermelon-may-lose-its-status-as-state-vegetable-of-oklahoma/article_1804e1c9-f8ea-5707-8bcf-6cf940665445.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[lawrocket 3]

turtlespeed

***Unless they're Oklahomaphobic

Damn, that makes me want to punch her right in the fucking face!

Wow.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,997]

>If a government requires a person to make a "Rainbow" wedding cake for a gay
>marriage, then a person should be required to make a swastika cake. There's a problem
>there, but it's evenhanded.

The government should not require them to make any cakes at all, nor do they. The only thing THEY (the owners of the store) cannot do is refuse to make one thing for one protected group, but make the same thing for another group.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Bringing back an older thread.

Oregon judge rules that you can't use religious beliefs as an excuse for discrimination.

From the article:

Quote

In fact, the case was rather open-and-shut. On March 1, 2013, “Stutzman refused to provide to Ingersoll a service she provided to others,” Ekstrom wrote. What she believes about same-sex marriage is immaterial, because the law’s protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation “address conduct, not beliefs.” Agreeing with the plaintiffs and the attorney general, Ekstrom asserted that “no Court has ever held that religiously motivated conduct, expressive or otherwise, trumps state discrimination law in public accommodations.” He also pointed out that Stutzman is not a minister nor is Arlene’s Flowers a religious organization. Likewise, the law does not specifically target her because of her beliefs, but is “neutral and generally applicable” to all people of all beliefs.

Italics mine.

If you have a business "open to the public", you can't pick and choose what groups you want to serve and what groups you don't.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[JerryBaumchen 1,365]

Hi joe,

Quote

If you have a business "open to the public", you can't pick and choose what groups you want to serve and what groups you don't.

First, thanks for the update.

However, you can choose what groups: No shoes, no shirt, no service.

In Oregon you cannot discriminate against protected classes, i.e., sexual orientation.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,997]

>However, you can choose what groups: No shoes, no shirt, no service.

"No shoes, no service, no exceptions" - no problem

"Gay men must wear shoes" - big problem

[Bolas 5]

billvon

>However, you can choose what groups: No shoes, no shirt, no service.

"No shoes, no service, no exceptions" - no problem

"Gay men must wear shoes" - big problem

"No custom shaped cakes." - No problem

"Custom shaped cakes but no rainbow and/or swastika cakes" - Problem?

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

[Stumpy 284]

Come on, it's really not that hard.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Bolas

***>However, you can choose what groups: No shoes, no shirt, no service.

"No shoes, no service, no exceptions" - no problem

"Gay men must wear shoes" - big problem

"No custom shaped cakes." - No problem

"Custom shaped cakes but no rainbow and/or swastika cakes" - Problem?

No, if someone doesn't want to make swastika shaped cakes, it's not a problem. Nor is it a problem if they don't want to put rainbows on the cakes. As long as the policy is applied to everyone.

The problem comes up when they will make rainbow cakes for one group (say, 8 year old girls) but not for others (say, gay weddings).

So if they want to make swastika cakes for Buddhists, Hindus or Jainists, then they probably would have to make them for the skinheads too.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[JohnnyMarko 1]

Stumpy

Come on, it's really not that hard.

That's what she said

[jakee 1,498]

Bolas

"Custom shaped cakes but no rainbow and/or swastika cakes" - Problem?

This was covered in the article that the OP posted. Then we went over it at the start of the thread. Then we went over it again. And then again.

Has anything changed since then?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Stumpy 284]

How do you know?!

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Bolas 5]

wolfriverjoe

******>However, you can choose what groups: No shoes, no shirt, no service.

"No shoes, no service, no exceptions" - no problem

"Gay men must wear shoes" - big problem

"No custom shaped cakes." - No problem

"Custom shaped cakes but no rainbow and/or swastika cakes" - Problem?

No, if someone doesn't want to make swastika shaped cakes, it's not a problem. Nor is it a problem if they don't want to put rainbows on the cakes. As long as the policy is applied to everyone.

The problem comes up when they will make rainbow cakes for one group (say, 8 year old girls) but not for others (say, gay weddings).

So if they want to make swastika cakes for Buddhists, Hindus or Jainists, then they probably would have to make them for the skinheads too.

Custom cakes is custom cakes, if you make them you have to make any type for anyone per the line of thought in this ruling. Choosing some shapes but not others would be discriminatory unless the reason was deemed non personal, such as technical.

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

[jakee 1,498]

Quote

Custom cakes is custom cakes, if you make them you have to make any type for anyone per the line of thought in this ruling.

No. It's not. Serving anyone is not the same as giving them anything they want.

Again, the reasoning is all laid out in both the article from the OP and in several upthread exchanges. Unless you have a new disagreement with the reasoning in those posts then at this point you're just sticking your fingers in your ears going 'naa naa naa I can't hear you'.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Bolas

Custom cakes is custom cakes, if you make them you have to make any type for anyone per the line of thought in this ruling. Choosing some shapes but not others would be discriminatory unless the reason was deemed non personal, such as technical.

Got any sort of ruling that shows that line of reasoning?

Basically you seem to be saying "Because a bakery will write 'Happy Anniversary, I love you" that they should then be required to write 'Happy Birthday Adolf, we are going to finish killing all the Jews for you soon.'"

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Bolas 5]

lawrocket

[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.

Correct. And this is where the key problem comes in. If, say, a government let's a baker decide whether he/she wants to make a Rainbow gay wedding cake or a swastika wedding cake, I have no problem.

If a government requires a person to make a "Rainbow" wedding cake for a gay marriage, then a person should be required to make a swastika cake. There's a problem there, but it's evenhanded.

If a government requires a person to make a rainbow cake but not a swastika cake then that's where I would have a serious problem because government is then judging content.

Said much better than I did...

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

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Umm...

No.

The baker can decide what kind of content he (or she) chooses to make.

No swastika cakes? Fine, as long as it's "No" for everyone.
One could argue that refusing to make swastika cakes would require refusing to make 'Elephant' cakes (red velvet would be the choice for that one) and 'Donkey Cakes (blueberry).

The baker cannot decide he (or she) is going to serve certain groups but not others.

They can do the same thing with the writing on the cake.

They can refuse to write "God Hates Fags" as long as they refuse to write "Death to the Infidels" too.

If they are going to write "Best wishes on your life together" for 'Adam & Eve', then they have to do it for 'Adam & Steve' too.

As long as the same rules apply to everyone, the baker can choose what he (or she) wants to make.

Or are you being deliberately obtuse.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Bolas 5]

wolfriverjoe

As long as the same rules apply to everyone, the baker can choose what he (or she) wants to make.

Unless those choices specifically target certain groups.

A rule applied to everyone that all wedding cakes only come with a white hetero couple on them? Even if applied to all, by nature is excluding racial and orientation groups.

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

[jakee 1,498]

Ok, again, not being able to discriminate against groups of people does not mean having to serve them what they want. It's a separate issue.

Let's say imagine some cafés. One decides not to serve Muslims. That's bad. Another serves Muslims but doesn't have halal food options. That's fine. Another has kosher options but no halal options. That's fine. They don't have to cater to every specialist requirement just because they cater to one.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 221]

jakee

Ok, again, not being able to discriminate against groups of people does not mean having to serve them what they want. It's a separate issue.

Let's say imagine some cafés. One decides not to serve Muslims. That's bad. Another serves Muslims but doesn't have halal food options. That's fine. Another has kosher options but no halal options. That's fine. They don't have to cater to every specialist requirement just because they cater to one.

Yet some would love those exact situations be regulated by the government.

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

[jakee 1,498]

'Some' people would love just about any situation you can imagine. So what?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?