No one ordered a Christ cake, or even a gay cake. They ordered a catalogue cake. If you had walked in, said I would like a cake, and they tossed you out as being too goyim to shop there, maybe we could talk.
Christ on a cake, how many times has that distinction already been made?
Nope. The Fourteenth, like almost all of the Constitution, is in fact incorporated against the states. It overrides any state law or state constitutional clause that conflicts with it.
You’ve certainly learned con law quickly this afternoon.
I have an important question which you’ve been asked repeatedly in many different ways:
This Jew, does he have that rosary/crucifix cake sitting in his display case, ready to sell to Hasidic customers? Would he be happy to make that exact cake for you if you were Jewish, and only refuses to make it for you because you’re Catholic?
If that’s the case, then yeah, he’s violating the law. But if he doesn’t make rosary crucifix cakes for anyone, then he’s in good shape.
:rolleyes: I haven’t learned con law; I was interested in a topic, I googled it, I read a sourced article on the topic. What you say in the first paragraph is technically correct but irrelevant, as the fourteenth amendment restricts state action, doesn’t allow legislation about private actions.
You may disagree with this Supreme Court ruling–if you read the article, it mentions a blistering 19th-century dissent–but that’s the binding precedent.
If you haven’t read the article, I recommend it. As I said, it’s excellent, and really interesting.
The baker does not need to provide anything they don’t want to. Period. Full stop.
The thing here is if they provide something for one customer but deny the very same thing to another customer because “reasons”.
So, if that baker provided cakes with rosaries on them and a crucifix with Jesus to another customer then they have to provide the same to you when you ask.
If, on the other hand, this baker never offers Jesus cakes to anyone then no problem denying you one because they simply do not make those cakes.
It’d be like asking Ford Motor Company to make you an Edsel. They can refuse to make you an Edsel because they do not make Edsels for anyone anymore. However, if they did make Edsels but refused to sell them to gay people then they violate the law.
No. There are a just a few cakes on display. It’s a tiny shop. Some are birthday cakes, but could be made suitable for a wedding. . . . but I’ve heard he’s a master craftsman with decorating. Most people just order custom what they want.
But whether or not he’s got a legal leg to stand on if he treats me in this way . . . does this experience render me a second-class citizen?
No.
If he does not make those cakes for anyone then how is he treating you like a second class citizen?
If you want to buy a blank cake from him, as did the women in this California case, and then put your own Jesus/message on it then he has to sell you the cake assuming it is one he offers to his Hasidic customers. If he refuses then yeah…you have a case against him.
So if he doesn’t have it in his case, it’s not a relevant analogy.
I want to be clear about your question. Is this a fair paraphrase?
A baker refuses to make a cake that clearly communicates a specific message. He refuses to make a cake communicating that message, regardless of any traits of the customer. Am I a second class citizen?
If that’s a fair paraphrase, don’t be ridiculous, of course that doesn’t make you a second-class citizen.
If it’s not fair, what did I get wrong?
And it makes sense if you keep in mind what the constitution does: It tells the feds: If it doesn’t say here that you can do it, you can’t. The 14th says nothing about federal regulation of private businesses. That’s why the commerce clause comes into play. The commerce clause does give authority to the feds to regulate businesses (even if folks can argue about whether it applies in this particular instance).
These terrible analogies are painful. I can’t believe I’m gonna help you out, but why not make your analogy better and more difficult?
Instead of asking for him to make a cake that he doesn’t make, ask instead for him to make a traditional Passover unleavened cake. Wear your swastika armband in, and casually tell him you’re gonna smash it at an alt-right rally in order to protest Jewish domination of the US government. Can he kick you out?
Now see, that’s a much better analogy. He’d bake the exact same cake for a Jewish customer, and he’d even bake it for you if you weren’t going to engage in an objectionable activity with it. The differences–that alt-right people are on average a million times scuzzier than gay people*–are difficult to put into constitutional terms.
It does if he would sell that same cake, rosaries and crucifix and all , to a non-Catholic or non-Christian customer.
I don’t think you are getting the distinction. It’s one thing to refuse to bake/decorate/sell a particular cake to anyone. It’s a different thing entirely to be willing to sell that cake with the rosaries to a Jewish customer who wants to celebrate his friend’s ordination but refuse to sell it to a Catholic customer.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The fact that you made this analogy demonstrates that one of two things is true.
OR:
As an aside, I’m no expert on the Talmud, but I’m pretty sure the analogy shows ignorance of Jewish doctrine as well. Given the long history of Jews living among Gentiles, I’d find it highly unlikely that a Jewish baker would refuse to bake a cake for a christening, no matter what the symbols on it were. Someone who knows more about Hasidic culture may of course correct me.
A new low for Left.
You sound very angry. I suggest you have a nice cocktail and relax.
And I haven’t been deliberately “moving goalposts.” I think a few posters are sticking strictly to the facts of this particular case; a number of others are speaking of hypothetical cases; others have been attempting to indoctrinate all of us what horse-hockey religious beliefs are, and especially religious beliefs that restrict us and others.
I liked the hypothetical cases better. I liked the idea of developing something that might work on freedom of exercise grounds.
So that’s what I’ve been talking about for quite some time.
People who don’t care for exploring where this leads, and where that leads, and look I found a new one, and no, that just leads back to where we started, and wait, here’s a great one . . . well, they would be better off skipping my posts.
Oh, by the way, I’m about to say something unPC.
So all the über-PC-manner would do well to find something else to read, unless you want to be annoyed.
Ready?
My former boss from many years ago said, “men think in straight lines. Women think in circles.” And I know I do. In fact, sometimes I think in spirals.
Like a Slinky. And at other times in dots. I don’t worry that the dots don’t connect. They don’t have to. I just send them where I want them to go.
All the women in my family are like this. Drives my brother out of his gourd.
This is continuing behavior that you were directed against continuing in the note you received in post #853.
This is a warning for failure to follow moderator instructions. Do not personalize arguments in this fashion and heed moderation you receive.
[/moderating]
I don’t drink, and I’m not angry - I’m just pointing out in extremely clear terms how stupid and off-point your argument is.
I recognize that many people interpret challenges as attacks, and presume that attacks must be made in anger.
That’s what’s known as “moving goalposts”. You know the position in question is indefensible, so you introduce a different one and pretend we’re still talking about the same thing.
Or by doing what they’re doing: answering your posts, and pointing out how the situation you’re discussing has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation at hand.
A cake maker cannot be compelled to make a cake they would never make - a cake that’s not in their product line. In this way they’re exactly like other businesses: you can’t compel a tire company to make wedding cakes, and you can’t compel a random person off the street to build you a Ferrari. This is not disputed by anyone and is, fundamentally, extremely boring conversation. Perhaps the only interesting thing to note about it is that speech, religion, and equal rights law aren’t even at play here - if a product isn’t sold, it isn’t sold, period.
Pretending that this situation - the situation where you ask for a rosary/crucifix cake and the owner says flatly, “Sorry, I don’t make cakes with rosaries and crucifixes on them. I also don’t do swastikas, Pepe the frog, or Ninja Turtles” is in any way comparable to “This is a cake I make, but not for gays.” is disingenuous at best.
What’s your point?
Sure, which is why, on the whole, I disagree with this decision. But I see it more as a “there’s a difficult line to draw and the world is complex and, from the information I have, I think the judge got this one wrong, but I’m not an expert” than “OMG this is the first step to a theocracy” or “as soon as Alabama hears about this it will be legal to ban gay people from restaurants”, if you see the distinction I’m making.
(Edited to add: granted, that’s easy for me to say as a married straight guy…)