Bizarre. I’d look more at the responsibilities and obligations a business owner assumes when they open a business on the grounds that I don’t care about the feelings of the people I do business with. I give money, you give cake, away I go. Feelings and beliefs of the person taking money and giving cake are not a factor. I’m not patronizing the owner, I’m patronizing the business. Don’t care about the owner’s feelings towards me one way or the other.
But that’s me. If that’s not how the law sees it, I guess the laws aren’t in my favour.
Really? Let’s say you lived in a state where discrimination against gays was legal. You wouldn’t boycott a business that refused to serve gays? I certainly would, even though I think the business should be able to do so, legally.
I’m not digging through 18 pages of posts looking for details, but if the bakery was refusing to endorse right-wing bigotry then of course they weren’t in the wrong. If doing the right thing in this case comes with a fine or penalty, they should pay it. Cost of doing business. But they certainly weren’t in the wrong.
Me, I’d say “sure I’ll make your cake, then I’m taking the proceeds and donating them to the ACLU or something similar.” I’m like that.
Of course I would. What does that have to do with the businesses I do want to do business with?
I did say that I didn’t care about the feelings of people I choose to do business with. Their feelings and beliefs might affect that choice, but once it’s made and I walk in and slap my money down, give cake. They’re a public accommodation, I’m a member of the public. Give cake. Don’t like gays because of your religion? Too bad, give cake. Don’t like gays for entirely secular reasons? Too bad, give cake.
As you can see, I’m not terribly sympathetic when it comes to bigotry. If the law is more so, then I guess the law and I don’t see eye to eye.
OK, but you have a funny way of saying that. "I’m not patronizing the owner, I’m patronizing the business. Don’t care about the owner’s feelings towards me one way or the other. "
Yes, you are patronizing the owner, and yes you do care about his feeling towards you. That is, if you would boycott the business because of the way the owner feels about you.
There’s no reason to retract my statement because there was no contradiction at all. Unless you think baking and designing mean the same thing, which they don’t. Try reading it again because the first three times didn’t seem to take. I’m not sure how much simpler I can make it. Denying a service which he provides to others (custom cakes) is different than refusing a specific design of that cake. He did the prior. And he did it solely because of their sexual orientation, not because they asked for a design he didn’t want to create.
And no, I really don’t care about their feelings about me one way or the other once I’ve decided to do business. Assuming they’re a homophobic baker and I’m a gay blushing groom, I don’t care what they think of my lifestyle. I care about the cake. If they congratulate me on my nuptials, great, but I don’t expect or demand it. If they rant and rave about how I’m in league with Lucifer that’s great too, if a bit tedious. So long as I get my cake.
I’m not trying to convince you, I just want to show everyone else how weak your argument is. Your argument is that we should do what you want because you really feel strongly about it. Good luck with that.
If someone doesn’t want to express themselves ina particular way, nobody can make him (so sayeth the Constitution of the United States of America). I don’t know where that leaves us but I don’t think its as easy as you think.
If only baking a cake was “expressing oneself.” The expression is in the design. If he chooses not to express tolerance of same sex marriage in the design of his cakes, that’s fine. He can agree to a design he feels comfortable with, but to deny them his services because he doesn’t agree with their marriage is discrimination, plain and simple. He wasn’t balking about a design, he was balking about providing a service (wedding cake) to a gay couple. I guess I might be a little unclear on the details. According to what I’ve read, the baker refused to create a custom wedding cake for them. I have not read anything that indicates that he agreed to create a wedding cake to his own design specifications. Is it correct that he offered them a birthday cake instead? Is that something he often does for his wedding cake customers or did he just do it for this particular couple?
ETA: Would you agree that if they requested a wedding cake of the same design that he has already created for someone else, then he’s already agreed to “express himself” in that specific way?
Um…which baker stipulated what? I thought the Muslim baker was a hypothetical.
I know I’m llate responding but I had to actually go to work and stuff. I had not heard about the rainbow. I think Masterpiece Bakery has every right to refuse to bake a wedding cake with a rainbow on it. If. I were the owner of Masterpiece Bakery I would probably refuse to bake a wedding cake with a rainbow on it. Because it’s tacky, whether you are straight or gay. And I could understand Masterpiece Bakery not wanting their name on it.
In the same vein I could understand if they refused to bake a wedding cake with a NASCAR theme. Or text on it. Our even a tasteful cubist themed cake if their signature style is traditional. I respect their artistry. They can have free rein in deciding what cakes to bake.
But that’s not the issue -unless I’ve misunderstood the entire debate. Because I don’t recall the part where the baker offered to make a traditional non-rainbow themed cake for the same sex couple.
That is why I keep going back to the deception analogy- how could making this cake be harming the baker’s religious freedom if a straight couple could order the cake then turn around and give it to their gay friends. So I actually do think it’s OK for the baker not to make a rainbow cake for a gay couple as long as he wouldn’t make one for a straight couple.
And I’m still really baffled by the whole “cakes that can speak” thing, but it would seem to me that if MB makes a cake for a straight couple, that same cake would still say the same thing if it were handed off to a gay couple. Because cakes don’t know if the person whose going to eat them is straight or gay. Because they’re cakes.
And all this wedding cake talk has me thinking that metaphorically, maybe commissioning a beautiful custom-made one of a kind art work that you cut up, eat and totally destroy immediately after the wedding is not the most auspicious way to begin a life together.
I think this argument is excellent and what the 4 liberal justices will hang their hats on. The problem is that it’s the type of decision that if 5 justices do endorse it, another case like this will be before the court very soon. They actually do need to establish what the balance is between religious freedom and civil rights. Because the next cake maker, or tattoo artist, or painter, is going to make sure to agree to perform the service but place difficult conditions on how the service will be performed. Let’s decide that now and get it out of the way.
Well, it’s too bad that right-wing bigots can take advantage of that to justify their bigotry. Smacks of your Jim Crow laws to me. I’d say ‘come join the 21st Century, America!’ but it has Trump and nazis in it.
Yes, there is. And if you want to drill down to that layer of symbolism, I think my position is clear, but in case it’s not, here it is again: if the baker would refuse to bake the cake for a het couple, I have little problem with his refusal to bake the cake for a gay couple. If he has a policy of decorating with depictions of curved rainbows but not of rectangles colored in a rainbow fashion, a la the flag, that doesn’t particularly bother me.
But refusing to bake a cake because of who’s asking for it? Not cool.
AFAICT, he offered them other cakes but not a custom wedding cake.
I had read that the wedding cake was gay themed (something about a rainbow).
So lets say that the famous artist that drew the famous Obama poster had painted a famous mural for Obama’s inaugural ball. Could we compel that same artist to paint a similar mural for Trump’s inaugural ball?
You seem to be saying that the artist could be compelled to paint the Obama mural for the Trump inauguration but not a Trump mural. Is this right?
That he couldn’t refuse to bake a cake for a protected class.