Cake for gay couple and ESPN blocking religious commercials

[Sunburn74]

Plenty of Bakers refuse to make cakes for multiple reasons.

If he had said "i dont have time to make the cake, sorry, im busy and cannot do it" .. we wouldn't be having this argument.

but because HE made it religious... he pre-empted first amendment rights.
this isn't a free speech issue.. this is blatant discrimination

Cake is art. Art is speech and is protected under the first amendment. You cannot force someone to write a message they don't want to send, even if its a bigotry behind it.

If you were a sculptor and were asked to make a statue of gay lovers in the act and refused because it offended you, should you be forced to make that statue ? No. Art is your expression of ideas and whilst people can commission you, they shouldnt be able to force you to deliver ideas and thoughts you don't agree with. Every piece you make as an artist is essentially a statement and this law perhaps is undermining freedom of speech by forcing certain individuals to make statements against their will.

And BTW I am very pro gay rights. I just think a more fundamental right is being trounced here when it shouldn't be.

 

[techofalltrades]

If you were a sculptor and were asked to make a statue of gay lovers in the act and refused because it offended you,

except..

it never got to that stage

the design of the cake was never discussed.


the couple asked for a wedding cake to celebrate their gay marriage.

the baker said "no, because i dont like gay marriage"

if you can't see the difference between refusal at design stage, and refusal at offer stage.. then you will never understand the judges ruling.


here's the judges ruling:

It's not as if a baker is necessarily obliged to follow a customer's every request. As the judge noted, Phillips' attorney raised the specter of a black baker being required "to make a cake bearing a white supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation" and an Islamic baker being required "to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church."

But as Spencer responded, the problem with that line of argument is that the gay couple's order never got to the stage of discussing what would be on the cake. At that point a baker's "free speech right to refuse" might kick in, depending on the nature of the request.

Instead, Phillips announced preemptively that "I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." He refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple "regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like," the judge said.

 

[nehalem256]

A civil union is not a marriage, that that's the distinction being made. He would have been fine had he said he wouldn't bake them a wedding cake for their marriage/wedding reception but he would make them a cake for their civil union reception.

A civil union is basically an "I can't believe its not marriage!". The purpose is really the same as a marriage. As I quote before:

The whole point of a wedding, from a cultural perspective, is for a couple to invite their community to recognize and help enforce—indeed to approve of—their union as a positive thing worth supporting.

Replace wedding with civil union and it is identically true. A marriage or civil union is equally religiously offensive, because both require him recognize a same-sex relationship as a positive thing worth supporting.

Baking a cake for say a gay guy's birthday, or college graduation does not require him to make any such recognition and he would therefore have no issue baking a cake for such an event.

The judge seems to say that a civil union isn't an attack on his freedom of religion rights and that even though the bakery says they wouldn't bake one for two straight men getting a civil union, that the defendant is discriminating on a class of people who would get a civil union and that class of people is a protected class. I guess if they could prove that there are a ton of straight civil unions, then they should have done so to refute that.

You mean like in the cited case they had to prove there were a lot of male abortions?

 

[nehalem256]

except..

it never got to that stage

the design of the cake was never discussed.

the couple asked for a wedding cake to celebrate their gay marriage.

the baker said "no, because i dont like gay marriage"

if you can't see the difference between refusal at design stage, and refusal at offer stage.. then you will never understand the judges ruling.

here's the judges ruling:

One would imagine that all wedding cakes are going to follow similar templates. And be easily recognizable as a wedding cake.

Its not like they were walking in to buy a $10 walmart cake and he just happened to overhear they were going to use it for a same-sex wedding and got offended by that.

 

[ND40oz]

A civil union is basically an "I can't believe its not marriage!". The purpose is really the same as a marriage. As I quote before:


Replace wedding with civil union and it is identically true. A marriage or civil union is equally religiously offensive, because both require him recognize a same-sex relationship as a positive thing worth supporting.

No, a civil union and a marriage is not the same thing under Colorado law, that's the distinction.

a cake for say a gay guy's birthday, or college graduation does not require him to make any such recognition and he would therefore have no issue baking a cake for such an event.

You mean like in the cited case they had to prove there were a lot of male abortions?

Are you claiming there are a lot of straight same sex civil unions?

 

[techofalltrades]

One would imagine that all wedding cakes are going to follow similar templates. And be easily recognizable as a wedding cake.

not necessarily... there's design elements... how many tiers? what colors? flowers? what style cake? what flavors? what filling? frosting or fondant... cake design is very complicated.

a cake that looks like this:

requires a different conversation than this:

Its not like they were walking in to buy a $10 walmart cake and he just happened to overhear they were going to use it for a same-sex wedding and got offended by that.

i imagine the conversation went something like this..


guy: i want to buy a wedding cake
baker: i need the bride and groom here so we can discuss cake design
guy: i'm the bride, and he's the groom. its a gay wedding
baker: get the fuck out of my shop. i dont make cakes for gays

 

[Sunburn74]

except..

it never got to that stage

the design of the cake was never discussed.


the couple asked for a wedding cake to celebrate their gay marriage.

the baker said "no, because i dont like gay marriage"

if you can't see the difference between refusal at design stage, and refusal at offer stage.. then you will never understand the judges ruling.


here's the judges ruling:

I'm familiar with the judges ruling, but I'm arguing that even at the offer stage, his right to free speech is already at play. Simply making a cake for that wedding, regardless of the actual nature of the cake or the specific design, is a statement of itself and should be protected (this is different than say selling a gun or selling a table, because those are not art, whilst designer cakes are art which has a long standing precedent of being protected under the first amendment). If the cake maker were to make a good, but completely generic wedding cake for this gay marriage, he would be implicitly giving some approval (or least a position of neutrality) to the wedding, or even making the statement that money trumps his beliefs, both of which are statements he clearly doesn't want to make (he refused their money and the position of neutrality in real life). In fact, the only way for the cake maker to both make a cake for this wedding AND maintain his freedom of speech, is if the cake somehow directly says something bad about gay marriage, which the judge would not have allowed based on his ruling. To make him give a cake that delivers a position of neutrality or better when he clearly is not neutral, is violating his rights.

The fundamental issue again is that the cake artist is an artist and his cakes are works that are commissioned and should be protected under freedom of speech. You cannot force an artist to create a piece that sends a message he does not want to send.

All I'm saying is there should be an added exception to public accomodation laws: religious groups, private clubs, and artists with commissioned works.

 

[umbrella39]

Oh look it's the resident moron spouting the usual BS. Just STFU you libtard.

Oh look, the conjoined twin now parasite that died just showed up! Face it Sally girl, you are a Paultarded fucknob who continues to bring your crayons to a gun fight! HA HA

 

[techofalltrades]

(this is different than say selling a gun or selling a table, because those are not art, whilst designer cakes are art

and i would completely disagree.

i'd sooner say guns or tables are art
guns and tables require hand craftmanship...

look at the engraving on that... if it's not art.. i dont know what is.

 

[lopri]

and i would completely disagree.

i'd sooner say guns or tables are art
guns and tables require hand craftmanship...

Exactly. This faux-art distinction is a complete free-fall that has no logical end point.

You open a business in public, then you do not discriminate. Full stop. This is America.

 

[lopri]

Plus, do people really want the legislatures and the courts to micromanage each and every vocation and hobby the citizenry engage in? Which jobs are worthy of the 1st amendment protection and which are not? Every day, new jobs and innovations, go to the court to find out?

And what other religious doctrines are lurking behind, other than teh gays? Who's next?

 

[umbrella39]

The fundamental issue again is that the cake artist is an artist and his cakes are works that are commissioned and should be protected under freedom of speech. You cannot force an artist to create a piece that sends a message he does not want to send.

All I'm saying is there should be an added exception to public accomodation laws: religious groups, private clubs, and artists with commissioned works.

There are many artists that are gay you know...

Seriously though, wow, just wow.

Once the 'artist' becomes a business they lose whatever the heck you are trying to afford them here. My God... No.

If you want to open a bakery up in the mountains in a cave all by yourself with no need of assistance or help along the way, I don't think anyone in the world will give a shit about your creative process or if you chose not to sell to blacks, gays, midgets, whoever...

But if you want open a business and take ANY tax break.. open a business that uses ANY tax money whatsoever... from the lights on the street at night in front of your business to the road and sidewalk that leads up to it... you don't get to discriminate against any of your customers.

You act as though they asked them to create a cock cake with gay jizz icing. Sorry but the courts will never agree that a bakery or anyone employed at one should have special accommodations to discriminate against anyone. They sell a product and were not asked to deviate from the ingredients, the cook time, the shape, frosting, delivery, etc.

The only artists I see in your scenario are bullshit artists tbh. How do you feel about them being able to not sell pre-made.. generic cakes to gays? Art those art, too?

 

[zinfamous]

Having to get a license from the State to do almost anything is complete BS but a tipic for another thread. Want to cut someones hair.... get a license.... want to do someones makeup... get a license....want to watch someones kids....get a license...etc. wtf!

:hmm:

...OK....

You know, there is a reason this practice exists. It involves safety, and, from generations ago, to create an avenue of restitution where "improper/fatal service" does not result in the client (or the family of the recently-deceased client) from seeking immediate vengeance.

There is a reason for such laws, you see.

 

[zinfamous]

baker vs artists?

sorry.

bakers, and cake "artists" are contract workers. This is what I want, you do it.

Artists, painters and for the most part sculptors, are primarily doing their own work and selling at Gallery. If someone wants what they decided to create, they buy it.

The practice is not comparable.

Of course you also have commissions: create 75 sculptures for my tomb! (and, frankly, a guy like Michelangelo, 500 years ago, had far more freedom creating whatever the fuck he wanted for the tomb of Julius II than what we might see today. Dicks on Angels? sure--why the fuck not!)

But this is a different type of contract.

Sorry, this cake douche is running a licensed business that serves contracted work. I tend to agree that the average customer should just take their business elsewhere and flat encourage the town and everyone they know to boycott the place--just spend a few hundred dollars and run a couple ads in the local rag over a few weeks. Better than a lawyer--but we have anti-discrimination laws for a very well-established reason.

And, quite frankly, if his "religion" tells him that gayness is wrong, then fuck his fuckhole "religion." Cake boy's church should lose their tax-exempt status, if this is what their (obviously) closeted preacher is telling everyone.

 

[nehalem256]

not necessarily... there's design elements... how many tiers? what colors? flowers? what style cake? what flavors? what filling? frosting or fondant... cake design is very complicated.

a cake that looks like this:

requires a different conversation than this:

i imagine the conversation went something like this..

So you think that a chocolate same-sex wedding cake would be acceptable but a vanilla one would not be?

Of course not. Basically you are arguing that if the guy had been an asshole and wasted an hour of the couples time he could have then told them sorry, I cannot artistically make the cake you describe because it is too gay and that would have been ok.

guy: i want to buy a wedding cake
baker: i need the bride and groom here so we can discuss cake design
guy: i'm the bride, and he's the groom. its a gay wedding
baker: get the fuck out of my shop. i dont make cakes for gays

Wrong, according to the story he told them he would be fine baking them a non-wedding cake.

 

[nehalem256]

And, quite frankly, if his "religion" tells him that gayness is wrong, then fuck his fuckhole "religion." Cake boy's church should lose their tax-exempt status, if this is what their (obviously) closeted preacher is telling everyone.

And this is the real truth. Liberals want to use the force of the government to force people to conform to their world view. No decent can be tolerated.

Hey, maybe we should ship people who oppose same-sex marriage to a re-education camp in Siberia?

 

[fskimospy]

And this is the real truth. Liberals want to use the force of the government to force people to conform to their world view. No decent can be tolerated.

Hey, maybe we should ship people who oppose same-sex marriage to a re-education camp in Siberia?

The guy who said we should have the police arrest women and forcibly abort their children is worried that liberals might want to use the force of government to force people to conform to their world view.

You are a clown.

 

[nehalem256]

The guy who said we should have the police arrest women and forcibly abort their children is worried that liberals might want to use the force of government to force people to conform to their world view.

Of course you are describing a situation in which someone MUST be forced by the government to conform to their world view.

Assuming we are not going to let children starve the other choice is for the government to force people to pay for women's bastard children.

EDIT: And you don't see me arguing for in effect sending people who I disagree with, like you, to siberia for reeducation.

You are a clown.

You are the guy who said poor women are too stupid/selfish to make good choices, but then nevertheless worships the choices these women make. Clowns look down at you.

 

[werepossum]

You make a strange distinction. Nobody tells you to employ a specific person. The law says you cannot discriminate. So you have a whole population of workforce available to you, ready and prepared. You can pick and choose anyone who can best handle the given job. You just cannot discriminate someone because of who s/he happens to be. It is not a terribly unreasonable proposition in a pluralistic society with some terribly unfortunate history.

And you know what, you can even circumvent that as long as you don't declare your bigotry in public. Lots of people in this country do just that.

Or at least, employers cannot discriminate against things one cannot reasonably change. If you tell me you "don't do mornings" and will be in when you get in, I can reasonably expect you to change yourself rather than you expecting me to accommodate you. Changing your sexuality or skin color to please me, while theoretically possible to some limited degree, would be a bridge too far even for those able to make such a transition.

And this is the real truth. Liberals want to use the force of the government to force people to conform to their world view. No decent can be tolerated.

Hey, maybe we should ship people who oppose same-sex marriage to a re-education camp in Siberia?

Sadly, both sides are in love with using the armed might of government to force others to conform to their own world view. Banning gay marriage by force of law is fundamentally no different than requiring everyone to accommodate gay marriage. In this area though the proggies are actually ahead of us because they are (currently anyway) only requiring that gays have equal access to businesses serving the public, not demanding that we re-order our private lives or denying us access to freedoms that gay people enjoy. (Except in hate crime legislation obviously, but that applies to relatively few gay people anyway.)

If I were denied the right to marry another non-blood related competent adult of my choice or prohibited from being served at some businesses you can bet I'd be royally pissed, not to mention very loud and very militant. But I still agree with the OP that ESPN's ban on weapons adverts should be similarly prohibited.

 

[nehalem256]

Sadly, both sides are in love with using the armed might of government to force others to conform to their own world view. Banning gay marriage by force of law is fundamentally no different than requiring everyone to accommodate gay marriage. In this area though the proggies are actually ahead of us because they are (currently anyway) only requiring that gays have equal access to businesses serving the public, not demanding that we re-order our private lives or denying us access to freedoms that gay people enjoy. (Except in hate crime legislation obviously, but that applies to relatively few gay people anyway.)

Proggies are worse. They got what they claimed they wanted: "equal rights for same-sex marriage". Now they want to force government into every little petty squabble. Conservatives opposed same-sex marriage, because they view marriage has important to civilization. Hard to argue that some dude refusing to bake you a cake for gay marriage has any real importance.

This is nothing more than a couple of gay guys who were butt-hurt that some INDIVIDUAL had the audacity to accept their relationship as equal. Its petty.

The application of the law in this case is not only unconstitutional, but also against the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is that homosexuals should not be for instant fired for being gay, a seemingly worthy cause, not so that Christians can be forced to support gay events.

I guess when they wanted government out of the bedroom, that was only so they could move it over to the kitchen.

If I were denied the right to marry another non-blood related competent adult of my choice or prohibited from being served at some businesses you can bet I'd be royally pissed, not to mention very loud and very militant.

If you had a hot sister I think you might change your tune

 

[werepossum]

Proggies are worse. They got what they claimed they wanted: "equal rights for same-sex marriage". Now they want to force government into every little petty squabble. Conservatives opposed same-sex marriage, because they view marriage has important to civilization. Hard to argue that some dude refusing to bake you a cake for gay marriage has any real importance.

This is nothing more than a couple of gay guys who were butt-hurt that some INDIVIDUAL had the audacity to accept their relationship as equal. Its petty.

The application of the law in this case is not only unconstitutional, but also against the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is that homosexuals should not be for instant fired for being gay, a seemingly worthy cause, not so that Christians can be forced to support gay events.

I guess when they wanted government out of the bedroom, that was only so they could move it over to the kitchen.

If you had a hot sister I think you might change your tune

LOL Maybe. Being an only child, I have neither any special abhorrence of nor attraction to incest.

EDIT: I do agree this is petty, even to the gays in this thread. However, a lot of what blacks rebelled against was also petty. For instance, judges customarily calling whites "Mr. or "Miss" or "Mrs." but calling blacks by their first name is petty. However, this sort of pettiness can make one a second class citizen even when one nominally has all the rights enjoyed by anyone else, by establishing that one is different and not entitled to the same treatment as "normal people".

 

[Daverino]

This is nothing more than a couple of gay guys who were butt-hurt that some INDIVIDUAL had the audacity to accept their relationship as equal. Its petty.

Amendment 14, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The right to equal protection under the law is a Constitutional right. If you wish to own and operate a business, you must treat all customers equally. Religious objections to the 14th Amendment have not held up in court. There are still people in this country who object to interracial marriage over religious grounds. If the owner was allowed to refuse this couple he could also, legally, refuse to sell a wedding cake to a couple where the man was black and the woman was white.

And seriously, if you're going to argue the Christian angle, let's get Jesus's words on this whole topic:

Matthew 25:
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Now does this override objections to homosexuality in Leviticus? The bible answers that too:

Hebrews 8
13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

People pick and choose the scripture they like in the same way that they pick and choose the amendments to the Constitution they like.

 

[nehalem256]

LOL Maybe. Being an only child, I have neither any special abhorrence of nor attraction to incest.

EDIT: I do agree this is petty, even to the gays in this thread. However, a lot of what blacks rebelled against was also petty. For instance, judges customarily calling whites "Mr. or "Miss" or "Mrs." but calling blacks by their first name is petty. However, this sort of pettiness can make one a second class citizen even when one nominally has all the rights enjoyed by anyone else, by establishing that one is different and not entitled to the same treatment as "normal people".

There would seem to be a pretty big difference between the actions of a judge and the actions of a private business owner.

No one is "entitled" to have other private citizens approve of your relationship. Which is what this case is about.

 

[nehalem256]

Amendment 14, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The right to equal protection under the law is a Constitutional right.

The bakery is not an agent of the government and therefore is not bound by "equal protection". And in fact the issue here was a law intending to grant SPECIAL protection to homosexuals.

If you wish to own and operate a business, you must treat all customers equally. Religious objections to the 14th Amendment have not held up in court. There are still people in this country who object to interracial marriage over religious grounds.

This is unquestionably incorrect. If a Neo-Nazi walked into a Jewish business the owner would be fully within his rights to kick him out.

If the owner was allowed to refuse this couple he could also, legally, refuse to sell a wedding cake to a couple where the man was black and the woman was white.

I am perfectly fine with that. After all what race would he be discriminating against?

 

[werepossum]

There would seem to be a pretty big difference between the actions of a judge and the actions of a private business owner.

No one is "entitled" to have other private citizens approve of your relationship. Which is what this case is about.

Quite true. I suspect this is why the gays in this thread find it no big deal. You're never gonna win them all.