Depending on the person and/or religion, just the fact there’s pork in the building or utensils/surfaces are used to prepare pork can be a disqualifier. Look at the rules for a kosher kitchen.
I hate to say it, because it’s so damn obvious but do you think that worked in any other discrimination case? I won’t serve you but don’t worry there’s a black/jewish/gay restaurant down the street? Are you losing your marbles?
Anyone whose beliefs were strict enough that they would not make a pork sandwich almost certainly would not be owning a restaurant where pork was served, so it’s difficult to see how this could really be an issue.
Shodan, you’re flat out saying discrimination is legal as long as somewhere nearby doesn’t discriminate. wtf?
“Case” might be putting it strongly, but whatever you’d call it, it contains packs of chips and cookies.
I am not sure. Consider an even more extreme hypothetical - a Muslim baker is asked to draw an image of the grooms on the cake. Since creating images of people is disallowed in strict interpretations of Islam, the very act of the creating the cake would be an issue.
“Why?”
“Because that’s bullshit, man. You advertise bacon subs, and I literally just watched you put bacon on that white guy’s sub, and also you just told me that you hate black people. So don’t tell me it’s about your freedom of religion. It’s about me, not about the bacon.”
Pretty poor career choice, then.
That is exactly it. The people have been told that they WILL recognize gay marriage even if 30 states passed constitutional amendments preventing it. The Supreme Court said that it will not be up for any sort of popular or legislative vote. You
WILL acquiesce to legal gay marriage!
But that isn’t good enough, you have to participate in gay marriages, even if that goes against your religious beliefs that the country was founded upon and agreed with you on since day one, or else you can choose to go out of business.
Even Kennedy agreed that this type of action was nothing short of open hostility towards traditional Christians. Land of the free, 'eh?
Username/post combo!
And how do you feel about inter-racial marriage? And bakers’ requirements with such?
This thread is fill of attempts to replace the cake in question with something else in order to strawman the argument one way or the other.
Some cakes are most certainly works of art. Some cakes are plain and standard and most certainly not works of art, unless everything that is made is a work of art.
The specific cake in question was the latter kind.
The judge is full of shit, and has legalized bigotry as long as any act of creation at all takes place. And let’s be frank - by doing anything at all, I’m creating something, at the least a bit of performance art (‘I acted out carrying a package to your door!’).
So yep. Bigotry is now legal.
So only Christians are allowed to force their religion on others by law or court decision? What happened to separation of church and state?
My link upthread of Muslims doing the same thing results in Muslims being told their religion doresn’t allow them to refuse service.
For pity’s sake. You offer a service, you offer a service. You don’t get to deny the service to people because you don’t like how they’re living. You mind your own goddamned business about how they’re living.
If I offer to bake cakes on spec, I don’t get to say, “Except you’re a Jew, and my religion teaches that Jews are devils, and I want Jews to disappear, so I’m not approving of your marriage.” I get to offer the service equally or not at all.
If your religion requires you to treat people like shit, your religion sucks. The law should be blind to religion, not willing to pander to its worst impulses.
This would be fine though since she would not offer to put that design on anyone’s cake. It is literally not on offer no matter who you are so no discrimination.
Right–and I’m confused why people keep missing this point.
If you offer one service but not another, no matter who asks, that’s not discrimination.
If you offer a service to one person but refuse an identical service to another, that’s discrimination.
This baker quite clearly offered a service–baking a cake with frills–to one person but denied an identical service to another, based solely on the sexual orientation of the customer. Clearly discrimination.
So if 30 states passed laws re-instating slavery it would be an over reach for the supreme court to declare those laws unconstitutional?
In a sane world “You WILL acquiesce to legal gay marriage!” would mean “We’re forcing all the christians to be married to people of the same sex against their will, ha ha!” Not “please stop persecuting people for doing things that don’t effect you in any way”.
If selling a completely generic cake is “participating” in a gay marriage, then presumably so allowing the gay person to buy any food anywhere, because generic food is generic food. Hell, allowing the gay people to continue consuming air is probably aiding and abetting - better cut that out.
My wallet rests easy now…and my lawyer now wonders how to pay for the new boat…
This touches on the baker’s agreement to refer business to her competitor.
Hypothetical: Suppose baker A took the order from the same sex couple, accepted payment, gave the order and payment off to his competitor, baker B, to make the cake and complete delivery to the reception. Should the couple have a cause of action for discrimination because baker A did not actually make the cake? What legitimate state interest is the state promoting if they bring a discrimination complaint against baker A?
ISTM that a member of a protected class does not have a right to demand a particular individual perform a service, only that they receive service on par with other customers. And ISTM that in the California baker case the couple is bringing a case because one individual refused service (“No, YOU have to do it.”) yet the business arranged that the customer be serviced.