That does raise the question of whether the caterers could decide that their religious beliefs mean that they could not provide the sloppy joes or any other food, for that matter, to the happy couple.
I would argue that caterers are more involved than a baker, as the caterers actually need to attend the event. They need to set everything up, the need to keep it stocked, sometimes they also provide service like carving stations, they then need to break everything down and clean up. Seems to me that caterers would have a more valid objection.
I meant no such thing and no, I can’t be arsed to read the article. As I posted just above, there’s already a case awaiting SC decision so who cares what this California judge said.
I don’t hate the first amendment; it just doesn’t go far enough.
I don’t know what else there is to explain except that I have no problems with christians. I even have some friends who are christian. I just don’t see why they have to always be throwing their christianity in our faces.
Being more involved isn’t the issue. It’s the act of creating something that carries a message. A cake with two plastic grooms on top with “Larry loves Steve” written on it is celebrating a gay marriage, slicing roast beef doesn’t.
Just to be clear, then, you are talking about a personal preference and not the details of this particular case? I can more or less agree with you, on a personal level. I don’t care much for overt religiosity. But I thought we were discussing a legal matter.
You have been wooshed I’m afraid. Substitute “gay” where he is saying Christian and you’ll see he’s just parroting things anti gay people have been saying for years but reversing who it is being said about.
I think the point is that when people say discriminatory things about Christians that have been said forever about gays, blacks, whomever, all of a sudden eyebrows are raised. The eyebrows should have always been raised, not just when its the dominant social group being spoken about.
I think it serves that point well, but is not necessarily totally relevant to this particular discussion topic.
I am not sure how that applies in this case. The Christian owner was asked to do something that goes against her beliefs so she declined. The couple that requested the cake then went to the state and filed a complaint.
Someone is attempting to shove something down someone else’s throat. You just have the participants backwards.
Caterers create. Just as much, and more, as a baker does. There is more time and effort involved in planning, prepping, and executing a catering event than there is in baking a cake and putting frosting on it. There are color themes and decorations involved. It literally is called “Culinary Arts”. How is popping some cake batter in an oven for a bit and then putting decorations on it any more of an act of “artistic expression” than putting together a several course meal for hundreds of people?
If it is just about the names on the cake, well, caterers also put name cards out on tables.
The complaint I always hear is that it is forcing them to “participate” in the celebration. The baker doesn’t, he at most drops off the cake and drives away. The caterer actually does have to participate.
I am not arguing that caterers should be able to discriminate against people based on protected attributes, I am just saying that if the baker wins, then the caterer should be next to refuse service to a gay couple, and should be able to refuse service on the same merits.
I think the point is whether trying to buy a cake for a gay wedding is “shoving it down someone’s throat” anymore than a black man sitting at a whites only lunch counter is shoving his blackness down the diner owner’s throat. I guess for the first few trial cases that’s true but at the end of the day, they just want to eat lunch without worrying about their blackness.
Until the gay couple requests that the slice be a little thinner or that the plate is served without the parsley or something, THEN it’ll be an artistic expression and not just standard fare.
In fact, if the conceit of the restaurant was simply a-la-carte, and thus each dinner served is “a unique creation”, the owners could just discriminate like mofos!
I wonder how many homophobic people feel the same way about this as they do about the bigoted baker’s case. I personally don’t know how I feel about any case involving beliefs and public or quasi-public services. It’s a very very tricky subject. Much easier to sit at the sidelines and look for hypocrites
