Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Man sues because of religious discrimination when baker refuses to make anti-gay cake

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Man sues because of religious discrimination when baker refuses to make anti-gay cake

    http://kdvr.com/2015/01/19/man-takes...anti-gay-cake/

    Because you can't have too many threads about homosexuality.

    But this is really about freedom of association. Bakers should have freedom (to refuse) in both directions, yes? Hopefully the point of this legal action is really to argue the opposite--in hopes that the ruling will be in favor of freedom of association, and thus set a precedent.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Joel View Post
    http://kdvr.com/2015/01/19/man-takes...anti-gay-cake/

    Because you can't have too many threads about homosexuality.

    But this is really about freedom of association. Bakers should have freedom (to refuse) in both directions, yes? Hopefully the point of this legal action is really to argue the opposite--in hopes that the ruling will be in favor of freedom of association, and thus set a precedent.
    Last edited by RumTumTugger; 01-22-2015, 07:52 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Joel View Post
        http://kdvr.com/2015/01/19/man-takes...anti-gay-cake/

        Because you can't have too many threads about homosexuality.

        But this is really about freedom of association. Bakers should have freedom (to refuse) in both directions, yes? Hopefully the point of this legal action is really to argue the opposite--in hopes that the ruling will be in favor of freedom of association, and thus set a precedent.
        I believe that a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay message on it, just as I believe that a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with a pro-gay message on it. But you present this as if it's an underhanded rejoinder to the earlier bakery incident in Colorado, which I don't agree with. It seems to me that there's a substantial difference between a baker refusing to write a pro-gay marriage message on a cake due to religious beliefs and a baker refusing to simply bake a cake that will eventually be used in a gay wedding.
        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by square_peg View Post
          I believe that a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay message on it, just as I believe that a baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with a pro-gay message on it. But you present this as if it's an underhanded rejoinder to the earlier bakery incident in Colorado, which I don't agree with. It seems to me that there's a substantial difference between a baker refusing to write a pro-gay marriage message on a cake due to religious beliefs and a baker refusing to simply bake a cake that will eventually be used in a gay wedding.
          I don't know if the earlier case involved anything physically different about the cake that indicated the nature of the ceremony it was for. If it did then the distinction you make here doesn't exist.

          But assuming it does, perhaps a relevant similarity is that cake creation and decoration is artistic effort involving an intent to help someone celebrate/promote something. It's not like refusing to sell a package of napkins that's on the shelf.

          Another relevant similarity is that in neither case is it really a matter of discrimination against a person. I should think the CO baker would refuse to make the anti-gay message, even if the purchaser was an atheist. Just as in the former case the baker would presumably refuse to make the cake for a gay ceremony, even if the purchaser were straight.

          But most fundamentally and most importantly, the relevant similarity is that they are both cases involving the right to freedom of association. The fundamental reason why everyone should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay message is that in a free country everyone should be free from being coerced by others to do things for them, and everyone should be free choose whether to enter or not enter into contracts with any other people. And that applies equally in both cases.

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm not sure if it's about 'freedom of association'. That's an individual liberty. A bakery is a business. A business has to abide by various state and federal requirements like health inspections and so on. Therefore it is not a completely free entity. A bakery also utilises space in the public square and avails itself of public infrastructure. Does a baker then really have the right to refuse an advertised service to a customer? Imagine a bakery that served 'whites only'. People have a right to their personal beliefs but if those beliefs are going to interfere with an advertised service they'd best try another occupation.

            Personally I think a suit is a blunt weapon to address such an issue, on either side.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
              I'm not sure if it's about 'freedom of association'. That's an individual liberty. A bakery is a business. A business has to abide by various state and federal requirements like health inspections and so on. Therefore it is not a completely free entity. A bakery also utilises space in the public square and avails itself of public infrastructure. Does a baker then really have the right to refuse an advertised service to a customer? Imagine a bakery that served 'whites only'. People have a right to their personal beliefs but if those beliefs are going to interfere with an advertised service they'd best try another occupation.

              Personally I think a suit is a blunt weapon to address such an issue, on either side.
              Do you think the baker in the OP should be forced to bake the anti-gay cake?
              I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                Do you think the baker in the OP should be forced to bake the anti-gay cake?
                Would I really WANT a cake that a baker was forced to bake for me?
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                  Do you think the baker in the OP should be forced to bake the anti-gay cake?
                  Hm, no. If it was me I'd say I'll bake you a cake and what you put on it after that is your business. I'm all about compromise.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Joel View Post
                    I don't know if the earlier case involved anything physically different about the cake that indicated the nature of the ceremony it was for. If it did then the distinction you make here doesn't exist.

                    But assuming it does, perhaps a relevant similarity is that cake creation and decoration is artistic effort involving an intent to help someone celebrate/promote something. It's not like refusing to sell a package of napkins that's on the shelf.

                    Another relevant similarity is that in neither case is it really a matter of discrimination against a person. I should think the CO baker would refuse to make the anti-gay message, even if the purchaser was an atheist. Just as in the former case the baker would presumably refuse to make the cake for a gay ceremony, even if the purchaser were straight.

                    But most fundamentally and most importantly, the relevant similarity is that they are both cases involving the right to freedom of association. The fundamental reason why everyone should be allowed to refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay message is that in a free country everyone should be free from being coerced by others to do things for them, and everyone should be free choose whether to enter or not enter into contracts with any other people. And that applies equally in both cases.
                    Okay, but I'm curious as to where you personally would draw this distinction. Should a conservative Christian tailor refuse to make a suit that a gay man might wear to a gay wedding? Should a conservative Christian florist refuse to sell flowers that might be used in a gay wedding?
                    Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                    I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I'm fairly certain the relevant distinction has been worked over many times on this forum:

                      A business or person is not violating equal protection when she objects to creating novel content. A wedding videographer can legitimately refuse to film a porn shoot, a landscape painter can refuse to paint genitalia, a baker can refuse to make a rainbow cake with the words "GAY PRIDE" etched on it. Essentially, it's perfectly legitimate to refuse commissioned work if the content of that work is objectionable.

                      What is illegitimately discriminatory, according to the "other side" here, is the refusal to provide "vanilla" goods and services to one or more groups on the basis of personal objection. A baker who has a set of basic cake designs is providing such "vanilla" services, as is a photographer who provides wedding packages. A hotel owner should provide rooms to people, regardless of whether she personally objects to some groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation.

                      An "anti-gay" cake seems to necessarily imply a commissioned work with specifically objectionable content. It is therefore a category error to conflate this instance with those that involve a "vanilla" service or good.

                      --Sam
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        A business or person is not violating equal protection
                        Equal protection is a limit on the state, not private individuals and entities. Even bringing equal protection into this discussion is a gross perversion of the constitution.
                        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                          I'm not sure if it's about 'freedom of association'. That's an individual liberty. A bakery is a business.
                          There's nothing in the constitution about a business exception. It's individuals who exercise freedom of association after all, even if they're running a business.

                          A business has to abide by various state and federal requirements like health inspections and so on.
                          The state cannot set requirements that violate the constitution.
                          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                            Hm, no. If it was me I'd say I'll bake you a cake and what you put on it after that is your business. I'm all about compromise.
                            Most leftists are about compromising things, yes.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sam View Post
                              I'm fairly certain the relevant distinction has been worked over many times on this forum:
                              Endlessly!

                              A business or person is not violating equal protection when she objects to creating novel content. A wedding videographer can legitimately refuse to film a porn shoot, a landscape painter can refuse to paint genitalia, a baker can refuse to make a rainbow cake with the words "GAY PRIDE" etched on it. Essentially, it's perfectly legitimate to refuse commissioned work if the content of that work is objectionable.

                              What is illegitimately discriminatory, according to the "other side" here, is the refusal to provide "vanilla" goods and services to one or more groups on the basis of personal objection. A baker who has a set of basic cake designs is providing such "vanilla" services, as is a photographer who provides wedding packages. A hotel owner should provide rooms to people, regardless of whether she personally objects to some groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation.

                              An "anti-gay" cake seems to necessarily imply a commissioned work with specifically objectionable content. It is therefore a category error to conflate this instance with those that involve a "vanilla" service or good.
                              Everything you say is good. As for the bolded I think that the anti-hate speech laws would cover that. In law, hate speech is any speech, conduct, writing, or display which may incite discrimination or prejudicial action against citizens.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:34 PM
                              4 responses
                              30 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by LiconaFan97, Yesterday, 07:31 PM
                              3 responses
                              34 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Bill the Cat, Yesterday, 02:47 PM
                              40 responses
                              165 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Charles
                              by Charles
                               
                              Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 10:59 AM
                              30 responses
                              154 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Started by Ronson, 11-21-2020, 09:47 PM
                              46 responses
                              300 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X