Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Sparko]

I could link yet again to the example of a baker refusing to serve a same-sex couple only after the design for the cake had been agreed and a quote provided, but since it didn't sink in the first six times I can't justify the effort to find it.

It is not that bakers are refusing to make cakes decorated with messages they don't agree with, it's that bakers are refusing to make cakes that will be used in a ceremony they don't agree with.

please provide that example. There have been several of these cases. Why would a baker agree to make a gay wedding cake complete with obvious decorations like two grooms and not realize it was for a gay wedding? The one I have been talking about is the Masterpiece case where the couple asked for a rainbow wedding cake with two grooms on it. Are you saying he agreed to make that cake and while talking to the two grooms and did not realize it was for a gay wedding until they told him after they decided on the design???

[seer]

please provide that example. There have been several of these cases. Why would a baker agree to make a gay wedding cake complete with obvious decorations like two grooms and not realize it was for a gay wedding? The one I have been talking about is the Masterpiece case where the couple asked for a rainbow wedding cake with two grooms on it. Are you saying he agreed to make that cake and while talking to the two grooms and did not realize it was for a gay wedding until they told him after they decided on the design???

I don't think that was the case with Sweet Cakes by Melissa either. I would like to see Roy's link...

[Roy]

please provide that example. ... Are you saying he agreed to make that cake and while talking to the two grooms and did not realize it was for a gay wedding until they told him after they decided on the design???

Yes. Here. You've been shown this before.

The dispute began after Valencia and Marmolejo, who plan to tie the knot on March 27, entered the bakery to get a price for a wedding cake made of individual petit fours. They had just received a competitive quote when DeLorme challenged the couple who the cake was for. When they explained it was for their upcoming nuptials, the baker owner replied in an allegedly 'disgusted' tone: 'Sorry. We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages'.

Also here. Two examples of bakers refusing to provide wedding cakes for same-sex couples regardless of the design or decoration of the cake.

[seer]

Yes. Here. You've been shown this before.

The dispute began after Valencia and Marmolejo, who plan to tie the knot on March 27, entered the bakery to get a price for a wedding cake made of individual petit fours. They had just received a competitive quote when DeLorme challenged the couple who the cake was for. When they explained it was for their upcoming nuptials, the baker owner replied in an allegedly 'disgusted' tone: 'Sorry. We don't provide cakes for homosexual marriages'.

Also here. Two examples of bakers refusing to provide wedding cakes for same-sex couples regardless of the design or decoration of the cake.

Roy you said: I could link yet again to the example of a baker refusing to serve a same-sex couple only after the design for the cake had been agreed and a quote provided.

I don't see the problem, they did not want to make a cake for a gay wedding, and? One of the couples did this before, from your link:

However, DeLorme, who owns the bakery with her husband David, said the firm would often refuse cake orders if they felt they did not fit their values.They had previously turned down an order for a beer themed creation and risque cakes.

Should then have been forced by law to do these other two that they refused?

[Sparko]

I don't think that was the case with Sweet Cakes by Melissa either. I would like to see Roy's link...

I recall one company that refused to CATER a gay wedding. I think that is also a valid thing to refuse since you would have to actually be there serving and being part of the wedding.

[oxmixmudd]

Any artist can refuse to do any particular work they wish - they simply cannot base that refusal on the color of a person's skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation unless it is directly related to that art. We've been around this horn before. I'm not saying anything new here.

So what you are saying is that the bakers should have just said: "I don't feel like doing that cake" and that it would suddenly then be ok?

Consider: A married, religious, monogamous gay couple that fully reject promiscuity in any form and that run a wedding cake shop. A heterosexual couple comes in and requests the shop to make a cake celebrating their open marriage with nude figurines of the man and the women in bed with multiple partners. Is the shop required to make such a cake even if it offends their conscience?

If not, why not? How is that different from being forced to make a cake with two men on it instead of a man and a women for a wedding cake shop whose owners believe homosexual acts are immoral.

If so - we can discuss that after you answer.


Jim

[carpedm9587]

So what you are saying is that the bakers should have just said: "I don't feel like doing that cake" and that it would suddenly then be ok?

So two answers. If they took this route, then the external reaction would have been eliminated, so no court actions, etc. However, if their internal reason was still "I do not do cakes for same sex weddings," then they are actually lying about (or at least disguising) their reason, and I think they are on morally shaky ground. If they cannot provide wedding cakes to any couple legally marrying, then (IMO) they should get out of the wedding cake business. Likewise, if you are not going to serve food to any race, you should get out of the restaurant business. And so forth.

Consider: A married, religious, monogamous gay couple that fully reject promiscuity in any form and that run a wedding cake shop. A heterosexual couple comes in and requests the shop to make a cake celebrating their open marriage with nude figurines of the man and the women in bed with multiple partners. Is the shop required to make such a cake even if it offends their conscience?

No one is required to create art they find morally objectionable. If they want images of nude people, they need to find an artist that does nudes. The issue here is not the look of the cake, it is the nature of the marriage and the sexual orientation of the couple.

If not, why not? How is that different from being forced to make a cake with two men on it instead of a man and a women for a wedding cake shop whose owners believe homosexual acts are immoral.

If so - we can discuss that after you answer.

Jim

The is no "sexual act" on the cake. The baker's know nothing about the sexual practices of the participants. If they are being asked to make a cake showing to people sexually coupling, then if they wouldn't do it for a heterosexual couple, they don't need to do it for a gay couple. The issue is different rules for different types of people. So long as the same rules apply for all, a business owner can do whatever they wish. When they begin to change the rules on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. in places where those things are not directly related to the service offered (e.g., gynecologist and women), then they have slipped into a form of bigotry. It is morally reprehensible, and we are now seeing if it is also legally inappropriate. My hope is the courts will determine that it IS legally inappropriate.

[Sparko]

When Jack politely declined to design a custom cake for a same-sex wedding, he offered to sell the couple anything off his shelves or to design a cake for them for a different event.https://adflegal.org/detailspages/bl...in-our-society

So despite Carp and others saying otherwise, he did not refuse them because they were gay. He offered to sell them any product off the shelf and even decorate a cake for a different event. The only thing he refused to do was decorate a cake celebrating GAY MARRIAGE.

[carpedm9587]

When Jack politely declined to design a custom cake for a same-sex wedding, he offered to sell the couple anything off his shelves or to design a cake for them for a different event.https://adflegal.org/detailspages/bl...in-our-society

So despite Carp and others saying otherwise, he did not refuse them because they were gay. He offered to sell them any product off the shelf and even decorate a cake for a different event. The only thing he refused to do was decorate a cake celebrating GAY MARRIAGE.

Which means he is differentiating his services on the basis of the sex (and possibly sexual orientation) of the customers - which is immoral and (hopefully) illegal. I did not say he refused to sell them anything. I said he changed his rules for what he would and would not sell solely on the basis of the sex of the people getting married. That is an inescapable reality.

The scenario is no different than being willing to give black people a ride on the bus, but making them sit in back. Or letting black people use the bathroom, but not the one reserved for white people.



ETA: Oops... I think I did a carpescape from this thread. Darn! That put it in the "fail" column.

[Sparko]

Which means he is differentiating his services on the basis of the sex (and possibly sexual orientation) of the customers - which is immoral and (hopefully) illegal. I did not say he refused to sell them anything. I said he changed his rules for what he would and would not sell solely on the basis of the sex of the people getting married. That is an inescapable reality.

The scenario is no different than being willing to give black people a ride on the bus, but making them sit in back. Or letting black people use the bathroom, but not the one reserved for white people.



ETA: Oops... I think I did a carpescape from this thread. Darn! That put it in the "fail" column.

You apparently can't read. There is nothing that says he discriminated against the couple on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. He said he would even decorate a cake for any other event. So the only basis of his refusal was the "gay wedding" which was against his religious morality.

Your example scenario has no correlation with the actual facts.

Suppose the gay couple sent in their straight friends into the store to buy their wedding cake for them and the baker understood that the cake was for a gay wedding. Do you think he would refuse to sell the gay wedding cake to the heterosexual couple?

[seer]

Suppose the gay couple sent in their straight friends into the store to buy their wedding cake for them and the baker understood that the cake was for a gay wedding. Do you think he would refuse to sell the gay wedding cake to the heterosexual couple?

Good point...

[oxmixmudd]

Which means he is differentiating his services on the basis of the sex (and possibly sexual orientation) of the customers - which is immoral and (hopefully) illegal. I did not say he refused to sell them anything. I said he changed his rules for what he would and would not sell solely on the basis of the sex of the people getting married. That is an inescapable reality.

The scenario is no different than being willing to give black people a ride on the bus, but making them sit in back. Or letting black people use the bathroom, but not the one reserved for white people.



ETA: Oops... I think I did a carpescape from this thread. Darn! That put it in the "fail" column.

No - that we disagree on. The cake celebrates a specific kind of marriage. I thought I had remember what Sparko said. That he offered them a generic cake that they could then decorate as they saw fit. So the issue here is the type of celebration - the artwork - not cake. Which goes to the point of my earlier posts in both threads. It's the type of celebration he is being asked to decorate for, not the orientation of the people asking for the cake.

I proposed my alternate scenario for a reason (about the open marriage cake). I want you and others to address the moral issue that is really in play here, not the hot button issue it has been turned into.

And so let us take away the explicit decorations perhaps outside the expertise of the bakers. These bakers oppose promiscuity. They are gay, religious, moral, and monogamous. This is the ideal for what a gay marriage could be. And they are being asked to violate their morality by decorating for a celebration of open marriage, a promiscuous lifestyle.

Should the bakers be forced to violate their conscience to stay in business.



Jim

[seer]

The scenario is no different than being willing to give black people a ride on the bus, but making them sit in back. Or letting black people use the bathroom, but not the one reserved for white people.

So did you figure it out yet Carp? Should a Catholic doctor be required, by law, to prescribe the morning after pill?

[carpedm9587]

You apparently can't read. There is nothing that says he discriminated against the couple on the basis of sex or sexual orientation. He said he would even decorate a cake for any other event. So the only basis of his refusal was the "gay wedding" which was against his religious morality.

I actually can read, Sparko, but you are missing my point. The baker is changing his rules about the type of cake he will or will not sell strictly based on the sex (i.e., same) of the couple. If the couple had been opposite sex, there would have been no issue. At no point did I say they refused ANY service. I said changing the rules with no other basis than the respective sex of the customer is inappropriate.

Your example scenario has no correlation with the actual facts.

Suppose the gay couple sent in their straight friends into the store to buy their wedding cake for them and the baker understood that the cake was for a gay wedding. Do you think he would refuse to sell the gay wedding cake to the heterosexual couple?

As best I can tell, if the proprietor was aware that the cake was use by a same-sex couple, they would decline the service. THAT is the issue. Your question is akin to the restaurant owner being willing to sell food to a white person if they are oblivious to the fact that they are going to give it to a black person. They probably would. That doesn't mean they are not prejudiced against black people.

[carpedm9587]

No - that we disagree on. The cake celebrates a specific kind of marriage. I thought I had remember what Sparko said. That he offered them a generic cake that they could then decorate as they saw fit. So the issue here is the type of celebration - the artwork - not cake. Which goes to the point of my earlier posts in both threads. It's the type of celebration he is being asked to decorate for, not the orientation of the people asking for the cake.

I proposed my alternate scenario for a reason (about the open marriage cake). I want you and others to address the moral issue that is really in play here, not the hot button issue it has been turned into.

And so let us take away the explicit decorations perhaps outside the expertise of the bakers. These bakers oppose promiscuity. They are gay, religious, moral, and monogamous. This is the ideal for what a gay marriage could be. And they are being asked to violate their morality by decorating for a celebration of open marriage, a promiscuous lifestyle.

Should the bakers be forced to violate their conscience to stay in business.

Jim

And here is the nature of the disagreement. There is no "kind of marriage." A marriage is a marriage. It can be between people of different races or the same race. It can be between people of the same ethnicity or different ethnicities. It can be between people of different religions or the same religions. Now it can be between people of the same sex, or people of different sexes. The marriage is unchanged. Only the participants change.

And I have already responded to the "artwork" question. If you look at cakes (do a search online) you will find that cakes seldom have any written text, and if they do, they are generic words like "love." The only issue real issue here is that they might put two plastic male figures instead of a male and a female.

I come back to the same observation I made before: if the rules change because the sex of the marrying couple changes, then there is a bigotry problem. It is immoral - and (hopefully) illegal.