Yes…
Who the heck does that on wedding cakes…
More and more this sounds like not so much lesbians didn’t get the wedding cake they wanted and more and more like they didn’t get the wedding cake made by a person that aint so much into lesbian weddings…and they’ll force them to do just that.
Well to be fair, I don’t think anyone is saying that. Just that the baker’s premade cake business is subject to public accommodation laws but his custom order business isn’t.
Not even close. They took someone to court for violating a law. I’m sure they ended up with a cake they are perfectly happy with.
Happy people don’t file lawsuits.
I am an atheist now - back when I was a holier than thou bible thumper, I could still separate my belief(s) from what others may believe (no matter how wrong I thought they were) and still was able to accept them as people, deserving of the same considerations that I wanted.
Something something - love brother as self - something something.
So, while my atheism certainly informs my viewpoint - it has nothing to do with my abiltiy to treat people the way I want to be treated - even the folks that are currently ‘holier than though’.
No, your summary is not right.
The California legislature may have passed such a law, but no matter how popular, just, or wise the law is, it cannot violate the First Amendment rights of others.
No one is trying to “overturn the democratic process”.
I’m sure there’s plenty of happy people working for the ACLU filing lawsuits all day long. Regardless, you can be happy with the cake you eventually bought without also being happy about the discrimination you faced at your first bakery.
Yes they are. The Constitution might be awesome but it’s not democratic. It’s meant to specifically guard against majority tyranny. If we all voted for a “No Jews allowed” law, that would be democratic. It would be rightly struck down on Constitutional grounds.
Looks like RitterSport did a fine job explaining why it clearly, patently, glaringly is not “the same darn thing.” Any other questions?
.
Once again, you are missing the entire point. If it is something that they won’t do for anyone, then they don’t need to do it for you. If it is something they will do for anyone, except for you, that is when there is a problem.
I am confused as to why those who think that those who are open to the public should be allowed to discriminate keep coming up with these examples that are materially different from the case at hand.
The poster I was responding to was claiming that these laws were trying to overturn the democratic process by judicial fiat.
There may be question as to whether or not these laws are constitutional, but there is no question as to whether they were passed through the democratic process.
Even if congress passed an uncontroversially unconstitutional law, then going to the courts and overturning it would be overturning the democratic process.
Are you fucking kidding me? This is a warning for threats. Don’t pull this shit again - though you may never have the opportunity to.
[/moderating]
Correct. Can you try and extend that just a little? “…and more and more like they didn’t get the wedding cake made by a person that ain’t so much into [black] [Jewish] [mixed race] [Christian] weddings…and they’ll force them to do just that.”
I hope my point is clear.
See…this is the thing…the only real IMO objections to this “let the baker be” are when you apply the slippery slope.
The favorite of people who are against whatever and boogeyman of those not against whatever.
I suppose you’re right, although there’s no such thing, really, as a pre-made wedding cake business. And, the judge seemed to single out wedding cakes making as deserving special protection.
Either way, I’ve read this thread all the way through and I’m impressed with the people who are staying with it and patiently explaining, again and again, how the design of the cake wasn’t the issue. I’m not planning on being that patient, so I probably won’t post here again.
I don’t know that your point is lost. I think your point is the goal.
As we’ve seen in this thread, there is quite a bit of animosity towards the very idea of anti-discrimination laws. That sexual orientation is the weakest of the protected classes means that it makes a good place to chip away at the protections that were put into place specifically to prevent this sort of issue.
The meta in this isn’t about cakes and weddings, but about the very nature of the responsibilities and obligations of running a public facing business.
OK, this really will be my last reply here, because this thread has been beaten to death.
You seem to be saying that gay couples deserve less protection than black, mixed race, Jewish, etc., couples. Because if they deserve the same protection, there is no slippery slope – they are already being discriminated against exactly the way that black Americans were before the Civil Rights Act. There’s no slope, it is right there, at the same level.
Otherwise, you’re saying that gay couples deserve less protection than those other classes. It’s OK for you to think that, but I don’t think it comports with California law defining sexual orientation as a protected class (or suspect class? not sure).
This judge disagrees with me, I guess. He’s the boss.
What are you claiming is at the bottom of this slippery slope?
Personally, I do see it as a slippery slope, but I see the ideals of equality at the top of that slope, and oppression of minorities at the bottom.
It has been an upward battle from the founding of this nation, to elevate the status of other human beings from that of chattel property to being actually accepted as equal throughout our society.
I feel we’ve made much progress on that road, but we have a ways to go yet. I feel that those who are fighting against equality are the ones that are trying to push us back down that slippery slope.
Fortunately, he has other bosses that may disagree with him.
The relevant aspect of the first amendment is speech, right? And the claim is that cake-baking represents speech.
This is a pretty strained claim, so forgive me for going all super-pedantic on it.
What is speech, except communication of an idea from the creator to the audience? If “speech” means anything, it must refer to communication. And for communication to occur, there must be an idea. And the idea must end up in the mind of the audience in some form simlar to how it started in the mind of the creator.
So, we have three cakes. One is baked for a straight couple’s wedding. One is baked for a gay couple’s wedding. One is baked for a display case.
If I am looking at the cake, in what way is a different idea communicated by these three cakes, such that the baker can claim that they can bake the first and third cake but not the third, lest it be compelled speech?
This is where I think the judge’s whole “expression” nonsense most thoroughly collapses. There is no successful communicative distinction amongst these three cakes.
Here’s another reason why it’s “different” - a reason that several people in this thread are for-some-reason ignoring despite it having been repeatedly pointed out.
THE GAY COUPLE IN QUESTION WERE NOT ASKING FOR A CUSTOM CAKE.
THERE WAS NO ‘OFFENSIVE’ CUSTOMIZATION REQUESTED AT ALL.
So all analogies involving customization of the item - be they adding native american stuff, making a custom movie, writing a custom song, arranging existing songs in a custom order for an anthology, all of that - they are false analogies and invalid argument.
Here is a correct analogy for the situation in question:
Baker: I make plain sugar cookies with no decoration. Every customer chooses which of these five cookie cutters I use, but that’s it.
Customer: I wanna order some cookies. Cookie cutter #3.
Baker: Excellent! I sell exactly that cookie to straight people all the time!
Customer: Cool! By the way I’m gay and will be eating the cookies with my gay mouth.
Baker: FUCK YOU. Get out of my store, you deviant! No dirty gay mouth is eating MY cookies!
Judge: Sugar cookies are sacred enough that that makes all sugar cookies super meaningful examples of free expression. So bigotry is super okay! Er, I mean that nobody can force a baker to make a sugar cookie (any sugar cookie) for anybody they don’t like, because that’s speech. But to throw a bone to federal law I’ll say that gay people can still buy old stale cookies, because separate but equal. Please ignore the fact that if this was REALLY a first amendment speech issue it would apply to all creations of the baker regardless of when they were cooked, particularly when dealing with items that are absolutely not of custom design.