SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Sparko]

I didn't miss that at all. If the baker makes personally designed wedding cakes then he can't discriminate as to who he makes them for.

actually he can. That is part of what the SCOTUS ruling was about. A wedding cake is art and you can't force someone to make art to your specifications.

[Cow Poke]

Adultery is legal too, but I bet he wouldn't make an adultery cake for a heterosexual couple.

Or a "I hate fags" cake for a heterosexual couple. I would hope we all agree he would have "editorial discretion" to reject THAT cake!

Or, how bout "Obama is a [N-Word]" - it's not illegal to say that, but it's certainly not acceptable. And I don't know a single person (personally) who would deny the baker's right to reject that.



(naturally, this will cause some of our loony left to accuse me of being racist or homophobic for even bringing that up, regardless of the fact that I CLEARLY denounced both cases)

[JimL]

In the baker's mind, "wedding" is only valid for a man and a woman. A marriage between a man and a man is not a valid wedding according to Christianity. So, if the baker only makes wedding cakes for weddings, then a gay wedding is not a marriage and he doesn't have to sell them a cake.

That's called discrimination Sparko. If interacial marriage is not a valid marriage in the bakers mind would you say he is free to not serve the interacial couple too. And so on and so on! whatever is in his mind?

[carpedm9587]

Oh, for cryin' in a bucket!!!! WHAT food is being refused because of the race of the consumer? Is this your "black people food" analogy, where you really think somebody goes into a restaurant and says, "hey, I want some black people food"? Carpe, you're WAY smarter than this.

The language of the analogy was bad - as I acknowledged. I was using "black people food" when the point was not "food black people like to eat" but rather "food a black person will be consuming." So it sent the discussion down a rat hole. The original analogy was better - using either marriage or restaurants.

And you're right - I am smarter than most of this...

Nope, the cake is being 'refused' because the baker doesn't have any of those in stock. He's plumb out! Doesn't expect to get any in the foreseeable future.

If the baker is not selling wedding cakes to anyone - then I have already said there is no problem and no discrimination.

No. H-E-DoubleHockeySticks no.

Yes. H-E-DoubleHockeySticks yes.

[carpedm9587]

Adultery is legal too, but I bet he wouldn't make an adultery cake for a heterosexual couple.

An adultery cake?

[Sparko]

Now you know that's a Trojen Horse CP. The KKK is not a protected class and so are not subject to anti-discrimination laws. I'm sure that must have been pointed out to you before.

Neither is sexual orientation. Nor "gay weddings"

[oxmixmudd]

In the case of the restaurant - the food is being refused because of the race of the consumer. In the case of the baker - the cake is being refused because of the sex of the two people marrying. The cases are analogous: service is being refused on the basis of the genetics of the end consumer(s) of the product.

Just saying it is so doesn't make it so Carpe.

This response to what I wrote is simply trolling.

No-one, no-where legislates the type of food a restruant must serve. If I want to serve Italian and only Italian food because I hate black people and don't what to make 'black people food', that is my buisiness. I still can shose to serve Italian food and Italian food only. I can chose to serve Italian food because I love Italian food. I can chose to serve it because I only know how to make Italian food. I can chose to serve it because there is a guy in Italy that will give me all the ingredients at 1/2 the price of any other kind of food. It doesn't matter one lick WHY I decide to serve Italian food. You nor anybody else on the face of the Earth has any right to tell me I must serve some other kind of food, no matter what the reason is I decide to serve Italian food.

That is just reality Carpe.

And If my cake shop only makes wedding cakes with a specific figurine that I order that is a single object that depicts a man and a women, then the only thing a customer can do is either not buy the cake from me, or take the thing off the top if they don't like it. Or If I sell wedding cakes without figurines on top, they can get one of those. But nobody can make me order a setup that depicts two men or two women if that is not an inventory I stock. It's just that simple Carpe.


Jim

[Sparko]

The event is the marrying of two people.



So the discrimination lies in their refusal to serve two people who are marrying because they have the same genitals. That is selective service on the basis of a genetic attribute, so a classic example of bigotry/prejudice.



It doesn't matter who buys it. I have repeatedly made that point. Maybe you missed it?



The heart of the issue is indeed discrimination against people who are gay. They are being denied something people who are NOT gay are not denied: the right to marry. It is now legal for them to marry in this country (finally), and the only distinction between the wedding cake for the heterosexual couple and the wedding cake for the homosexual couple is the genitals the respective partners possess. If it is discriminatory to differentiate the morality of an act (or event) on the basis of skin color, it is likewise discriminatory to do so on the basis of sex.

So who is he discriminating against when he refuses to make Halloween cakes? Witches?

[carpedm9587]

Or a "I hate fags" cake for a heterosexual couple. I would hope we all agree he would have "editorial discretion" to reject THAT cake!

Or, how bout "Obama is a [N-Word]" - it's not illegal to say that, but it's certainly not acceptable. And I don't know a single person (personally) who would deny the baker's right to reject that.

(naturally, this will cause some of our loony left to accuse me of being racist or homophobic for even bringing that up, regardless of the fact that I CLEARLY denounced both cases)

You guys are badly down the rathole of mixing apples with oranges. No one said a baker is required to create a cake that endorses an immoral/racist/bigoted position. Indeed, exactly the opposite is being said.

I'd give you an analogy for what you're doing...but I think we all know how useful THAT is likely to be...

[Cow Poke]

actually he can. That is part of what the SCOTUS ruling was about. A wedding cake is art and you can't force someone to make art to your specifications.

When somebody commissions an artist to do a work for them, there's a negotiation, both as to content, interpretation, price, estimated time of completion... I know of no other artist who is forced to enter into such a contract against his/her will.

It boils down to one side arguing he's an artist with 'artistic license', and the other side insisting he's just a baker. He obviously didn't get into business to be "just a baker".

[Sparko]

The analogy was based on whom the food was for, not the nature of the food.



If a butcher serves kosher food, they need to serve it to anyone that wants to buy it. If they do not serve kosher food, that is not a service they offer to anyone - no problem.
If the baker serves wedding cakes, they need to serve them to anyone that wants to buy it. If they do not make wedding cakes, that is not a service they offer to anyone - no problem.

If the baker made wedding cakes for gay weddings he would have to sell them to anyone. If he doesn't make cakes for gay weddings and doesn't offer the service to anyone - no problem.

The food is the same, the way it was butchered and the purpose of the meat was not. You can still buy lamb at the butcher shop, just not kosher lamb. So he is not selling "food for jewish people" - exactly the same analogy you were trying to use but without the racist undertones. If I went into his butcher shop and demanded "food for jewish people" and he said "we don't have any kosher meat here" is he a bigot??

[Cow Poke]

You guys are badly down the rathole of mixing apples with oranges.

Bakers don't bake those.

No one said a baker is required to create a cake that endorses an immoral/racist/bigoted position.

EGGzakly!!!!

Indeed, exactly the opposite is being said.

I'd give you an analogy for what you're doing...but I think we all know how useful THAT is likely to be...

Lemme guess... it would either be

A) fail
2) epic fail


What you're doing, and you can't quite admit it, is that you're actually allowing the baker to exercise discretion as to what kind of cakes he designs, but ONLY as long as he agrees with you.

[Sparko]

That's called discrimination Sparko. If interacial marriage is not a valid marriage in the bakers mind would you say he is free to not serve the interacial couple too. And so on and so on! whatever is in his mind?

If it were his religious belief, then yes. I don't think it is a good idea for anyone to be forced to serve anyone anything. Do you believe in slavery Jim? Because you are promoting it.

But I know of no religion that thinks interracial marriage is invalid. So your analogy sucks.

What about a marriage between a woman and her dog? Should the baker be forced to bake that one?

[Sparko]

You guys are badly down the rathole of mixing apples with oranges. No one said a baker is required to create a cake that endorses an immoral/racist/bigoted position. Indeed, exactly the opposite is being said.

But only if YOU approve what is and is not immoral/bigoted? Because the baker definitely thinks that gay weddings are immoral. So either here you are saying you are the sole judge of morality, or that you are fine with the baker refusing to make cakes for gay weddings.

[Cow Poke]

Now you know that's a Trojen Horse CP.

Dear brother, whom I love, might I kindly suggest you look up what, exactly, a "Trojan horse" is, because it kinda sorta doesn't apply to this situation at all.

The KKK is not a protected class and so are not subject to anti-discrimination laws. I'm sure that must have been pointed out to you before.

So, in my efforts to be more civil, might I ask the same from you, and discontinue these little snide comments? Let's see if both of us can set the example that will make the clouds part, the sun shine, the birds sing, and the unicorn poop rainbow ice cream!

OK, back to your post...

"Sexual orientation" and "gay weddings" aren't protected classes, either, Jim. But you DO agree that the cake designer should have the editorial discretion NOT to create those cakes I mentioned, yes?