# Commercial Establishment Refusing to Provide Message They Object to **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2016, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860 "2016-10-27T17:24:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/41 "2016-10-28T20:18:02Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Yeah, this is real can-of-worms/slippery-slope territory. A veritable mixed metaphor of Solomon. ---
**Author:** ![tonyfop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@tonyfop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tonyfop)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/42 "2016-10-28T21:10:26Z")
I think the key here is that it is an inherently political message. The cake was being baked and decorated to promote a political agenda. If I go into a bakery as a Trump supporter and ask for a “Make America Great Again” cake, and the baker finds Trump repugnant, should he be compelled to decorate this cake, to push a political agenda he does not support? No, he can refuse to make a Trump cake, and they can refuse to make a pro gay marriage cake. It is not a gay marriage that they are stopping, they don’t believe that the law should be changed. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2016, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/43 "2016-10-28T23:12:47Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I understand your applause of the decision, but this is just as easily something that could/will work against gay people as for them. For instance, as mentioned above, what if a straight couple demands that a gay bakery bake a pro-traditional-marriage customized cake for them? I get that you may think that I would be aghast, having my own logic used against me. But you’d be wrong. I would tell the gay bakery to stop fucking around and make that cake too. Don’t be assholes, gay or straight > [@TriPolar](#): > > What if the customers aren’t gay? We’re talking about a written message here, do you think they should be compelled by the state to write anything on a cake just because they’ll write some things on a cake? I don’t. If the writing was done by a machine that anyone could come in the store and use by typing in their message I’d say it’s wrong to disallow that to be used for certain messages but this is a case of compelling a person to write something they find objectionable, even if I find their objection objectionable I don’t think that should be done. I guess we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. Purely speculating, I think all wedding cakes, gay or straight, should be protected, because you’re the sexuality you are at birth and its wrong to discriminate. Whatever court that gets the case in your example above will have to decide this. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/44 "2016-10-29T00:13:35Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You tell me. I can’t. If the state can force custom content creation in one case what principle prevents the state from forcing other custom content creation? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/45 "2016-10-29T00:17:16Z")
> [@tonyfop](#): > > I think the key here is that it is an inherently political message. The cake was being baked and decorated to promote a political agenda. If I go into a bakery as a Trump supporter and ask for a “Make America Great Again” cake, and the baker finds Trump repugnant, should he be compelled to decorate this cake, to push a political agenda he does not support? No, he can refuse to make a Trump cake, and they can refuse to make a pro gay marriage cake. It is not a gay marriage that they are stopping, they don’t believe that the law should be changed. If the state is forcing creation, than yes. And the baker better do a damn good job or risk a re-education camp. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/46 "2016-10-29T00:52:52Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > A veritable mixed metaphor of Solomon. Yeah, it’s like cutting the writing on the wall in half. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/47 "2016-10-29T02:05:26Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Yeah, it’s like cutting the writing on the wall in half. It certainly belongs in the pit. "Here is what these words mean: Mene[e]: God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. Tekel[f]: You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. Peres[g]: Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians" Obviously a troll. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/48 "2016-10-29T06:00:59Z")
For heaven’s sake! Didn’t we go through this 50 years ago, with segregated businesses refusing to serve blacks? And US Courts have pretty much a settled outlook on this: _if you are operating a public business, you have to serve **all** members of the public_. If you’re not willing to do that, don’t open a business. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/49 "2016-10-29T06:19:21Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > For heaven’s sake! Didn’t we go through this 50 years ago, with segregated businesses refusing to serve blacks? > > And US Courts have pretty much a settled outlook on this: _if you are operating a public business, you have to serve **all** members of the public_. If you’re not willing to do that, don’t open a business. So people are forced to publish messages they disagree with? You can get banned from this board for any reason if the administrator so chooses. The government won’t compel this board to host your content. Even if you’re willing to pay. So how is that different? If I want that bakery to make me a cake with let’s say an offensive flag on it would the government compel them to? ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/50 "2016-10-29T06:25:14Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Sorry, why should I, as a liberal, care one way or the other about these passages? You personally may not care. But if somebody said things like that today, many, many liberals would scream at the top of their lungs that it was “hate speach!” Liberals in general have an apparently irresistible impulse to try to force people to think and act in a certain way–that is the **sole** reason why that bakery got in legal trouble for refusing to serve that gay couple. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/51 "2016-10-29T07:02:14Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > So you could go to any creator of custom content and compel them to produce anything that is tangentially related to race, religion, or sexual desire? No. They could say “We don’t produce content that advocates or opposes particular races, religions, or sexual desires”. The Court of Appeal was clear about that in this case. What they can’t do is tell you they won’t produce _your_ content because it advocates a _particular_ sexual desire,\* but then agree to produce content for someone else which advocates one that they agree with. \*From my reading of a [summary](http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial%20Decisions/SummaryJudgments/Documents/Decision%20in%20Ashers%20Bakery%20Appeal/j_j_Summary%20of%20judgment%20-%20Lee%20v%20Ashers%20Baking%20Co%20Ltd%2024%20Oct%2016.htm) of the judgment it seems the sexual orientation issue was the only one directly dealt with, although the Court did indicate it was likely to take the same approach to a purely religious discrimination case - which is understandable given the history of the province. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/52 "2016-10-29T07:10:32Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Its an easy leap. Since most or all Nazis are white, a refusal to bake a pro-nazi cake hurts a particular racial group the most. Race is a protected class so jewish bakers must bake the cakes. This might be valid if all, or even the preponderance of WASPs supported the Nazis, when, in fact, the larger fraction of that group oppose the Nazis or are mostly indifferent. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/53 "2016-10-29T07:19:15Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > …Liberals in general have an apparently irresistible impulse to try to force people to think and act in a certain way–that is the **sole** reason why that bakery got in legal trouble for refusing to serve that gay couple. Whereas you wouldn’t catch a _conservative_ trying to force other people to think an act in a certain way, no sir. “Live and let live”, the motto of homophobes across the globe. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/54 "2016-10-29T07:37:58Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > So people are forced to publish messages they disagree with? Yes. That’s a cost of doing business with the public – you have to deal with people or opinions you don’t agree with. We forced white restaurants to serve food to black people who they literally hated! I’ve had to write computer systems for many things I disagreed with: incentives for car salesmen who oversold customers, bonuses for bankers who pushed unneeded accounts, systems to help big companies avoid paying injured workers, etc. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/55 "2016-10-29T13:51:57Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > I’ve had to write computer systems for many things I disagreed with: incentives for car salesmen who oversold customers, bonuses for bankers who pushed unneeded accounts, systems to help big companies avoid paying injured workers, etc. I’m amazed. Who forced you to do that? ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/56 "2016-10-29T14:48:49Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Whereas you wouldn’t catch a _conservative_ trying to force other people to think an act in a certain way, no sir. “Live and let live”, the motto of homophobes across the globe. You are illustrating my point perfectly. Your choice of words shows that you think that anybody who disagrees with you is a hate-filled monster and should be punished. We **tried** the “live and let live” approach. Back in 2003, when Lawrence vs. Texas was before the Supreme Court, the whole rallying cry of gays was “let us do what we want in private.” But that’s not really what they wanted. It was a lie. They didn’t want equal rights. They wanted special rights – “rights” that had never existed in all of recorded history until a few years ago. But even **that’s** not enough for them. Now they’re trying to make merely disagreeing with their lifestyle a hate crime. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/57 "2016-10-29T15:56:03Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > We **tried** the “live and let live” approach. Bwa-hahahaha… _when?_ ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/58 "2016-10-29T16:32:59Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > You are illustrating my point perfectly. Your choice of words shows that you think that anybody who disagrees with you is a hate-filled monster and should be punished. > > We **tried** the “live and let live” approach. Back in 2003, when Lawrence vs. Texas was before the Supreme Court, the whole rallying cry of gays was “let us do what we want in private.” > > But that’s not really what they wanted. It was a lie. They didn’t want equal rights. They wanted special rights – “rights” that had never existed in all of recorded history until a few years ago. > > But even **that’s** not enough for them. Now they’re trying to make merely disagreeing with their lifestyle a hate crime. That’s one of the goofiest posts I’ve seen in a while. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/59 "2016-10-29T16:41:49Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > However, if the shop is in the routine business of customizing wedding cakes by putting names on them, or those little miniature figures, then it should certainly _not_ be legal for the cakemaker to refuse to put “Peter and Frank” or two male figures on the cake. > > So I now question whether such a fine distinction really makes sense – is it a meaningful distinction that the cakemaker cannot refuse to decorate this cake in fashion consistent with celebrating this _particular_ couple’s gay marriage; but he can refuse to decorate it with a broader political statement celebrating _all_ gay marriage? I’m not sure the distinction makes sense. What if the cakemaker says that he is in the “routine business” of putting only male and female figurines on cakes, therefore putting two male figurines on a cake is a sort of customization that he refuses to do? The comparisons to Jim Crow are also not apt. A publisher must accept black customers, but is not required to publish NAACP posters. Likewise a cakemaker must accept gay customers, but he should need not provide a particular product. I agree with Flyer. This whole scenario is a sort of victor’s justice that attempts to _criminalize_ opposition to SSM. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860/60 "2016-10-29T16:59:42Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m not sure the distinction makes sense. What if the cakemaker says that he is in the “routine business” of putting only male and female figurines on cakes, therefore putting two male figurines on a cake is a sort of customization that he refuses to do? That can get confusing. If they sell male and female figurines separately then it’s hard to justify not selling two males or two females. If they only carry single piece male and female figurine combos then I don’t think they should have to start carrying separate ones. If they only but them in male/female sets themselves then they could charge you double to get a mixed set. A pair of figurines is not a political statement per se. And let’s not forget the details, a same-sex couple doesn’t have to be gay to get married, and the customers buying a wedding cake, or the cake in question don’t have to be gay. > [@](#): > > The comparisons to Jim Crow are also not apt. A publisher must accept black customers, but is not required to publish NAACP posters. Likewise a cakemaker must accept gay customers, but he should need not provide a particular product. Right. > [@](#): > > I agree with Flyer. This whole scenario is a sort of victor’s justice that attempts to _criminalize_ opposition to SSM. Here’s where you went off track. I disagree with the decision, but also with your conclusion. Opponents to SSM can go get a cake that says “Don’t support gay marriage”. Also, mentioned above is the idea that a cake store should refuse to put any political messages on a cake if they want to disallow any. I’m not sure I agree with that but it’s better than compelling them to put any political message on a cake. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/commercial-establishment-refusing-to-provide-message-they-object-to/769860.md?page=4)