Well, no, the premise of this thread is that bakers have been compelled to take orders to bake cakes in celebration of same sex marriages.
Well damn. I guess that’s right now that I think a bit more on it. Weird. I spaced.
How would it be religious discrimination if the group in question was not using it for a religious purpose?
If they are meaning to use it to mock those of Jewish faith, then I think that their order could be denied under the “don’t be a jerk” rule.
Just as, if I went into a wedding cake baker, and told him to make me a cake that I was going to immediately throw in the trash, I’d say that he’s not discrimination on any sort of protected class to deny my custom.
Now, maybe a better example would be if Muslim people came in, and they wanted a Jewish Bar Mitzvah, as there are no Muslim businesses in the area, and Kosher is close enough to Halal that it would be acceptable (which I don’t know exactly how that plays out, but I think that they are at least similar), then denying them would be religious discrimination, and should not be allowed.
No, this is not what’s happening. Nobody is compelling bakers to bake cakes. Bakers choose to bake cakes.
What bakers and other business owners are being told is that they cannot refuse to serve a particular customer because of the customer’s race or religion or gender or sexual orientation.
My opinion…
The baker (or anybody else) can choose WHAT to sell. They cannot discriminate on WHO to sell it to.
A book store can sell only Christian books, but can’t refuse to sell to non-Christians.
So, the baker should make a cake for the gay couple. Putting “Adam and Steve” is a who issue, so yes for that.
But, the baker shouldn’t be forced to make a cake with rainbow icing. That makes it a what issue.
The baker can also choose not to make cakes with a cross, or a confederate flag.
Damn autocorrect removing “whole post”. I am trying to put it back in…
My opinion…
The baker (or anybody else) can choose WHAT to sell. They cannot discriminate on WHO to sell it to.
A book store can sell only Christian books, but can’t refuse to sell to non-Christians.
So, the baker should make a cake for the gay couple. Putting “Adam and Steve” is a who issue, so yes for that.
But, the baker shouldn’t be forced to make a cake with rainbow icing. That makes it a what issue.
The baker can also choose not to make cakes with a cross, or a confederate flag.
The bold is where I stand, too. But I think what the baker writes is a “what” issue, not a “who issue”.
Really? Then I was misinformed since I thought that was the issue. In that case, the baker’s refusal was inexcusable.
Bar Mitzvah isn’t a food, it’s a ritual.
As mentioned above, bar mitzvah is a ritual which recognizes that a Jewish male has entered adulthood. A Jewish male enters adulthood upon reaching the age of 13, and this is not negated by the lack of the ceremony.
The bit about kosher food, though, is not an issue of “close enough”; it’s set in the Qur’an. To be specific, it’s Surah 5, Verse 5:
This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them.
One thing I haven’t noticed anyone else point out in this thread is that you’re equating ‘gay couple existing’ with ‘people choosing to be white supremacists’, and don’t seem to see the difference. Do you really think that gay people simply existing and wanting to be treated as human beings with human rights is equivalent to someone wanting to kill or enslave all of the ‘inferior races’?
Maybe the solution should be that you must post, in all advertising, signage and on storefront your chosen ‘won’t do’. So the rest of the population can decide to patronize your business or not.
So, the baker gets a sign on the door saying ‘we do not participate in gay events’, the pharmacist gets a sign saying, ‘we do not provide Day After Contraception’, etc, etc. On the front door. Persons finding that unwelcoming can then choose knowingly.
If they’re going to be that way, they should be forced to be open and upfront about it, no surprises. Let the free market do its job!
Sure, there will be communities that endorse it, maybe, but I don’t think they’ll survive for long. You want to play that game, you should have to be public about it, I think.
The hypothetical Jewish caterers are willing to cater for non-Jewish parties and Bar Mitzvah parties for Jews. However, they’re not willing to cater for Bar Mitzvah style parties for non-Jews. They’re willing to offer a service to people of one religion, but not people of a different religion.
The Muslim angle occurred to me as well, but I thought it was less ambiguous. If a company is willing to cater for a non-religious party, but unwilling to cater for a Muslim party, then that seems to be a clear-cut case of religious discrimination. That’s even less ambiguous than the gay wedding cake scenario.
As for being able to deny service under the ‘“don’t be a jerk” rule’, that seems like a pretty big loophole. In most contexts, demanding service from someone who doesn’t want to serve you is jerkish behaviour. Asserting one’s civil rights justifies the insistence to be served in most cases in my opinion. But going back to the gay wedding cake bakers, some people would view the gay couple as jerks for not simply going to another baker. If someone can refuse to serve someone for being jerkish, and they’re allowed to decide what jerkish behaviour is, then they can simply decide that coming into their shop while gay is jerkish behaviour. There needs to be another element to the justification such as cultural appropriation.
So you’ll bring back segregation, and this time the free market will defeat it, even though historically it took multiple laws, court cases, and deploying federal law enforcement? I’m not sure what benefit allowing “No Chinese or dogs” signs or “Black at the back” rules for busses brings to us as a society, and I can certainly see the drawbacks.
That wouldn’t be so bad in cities with plenty of options, but if you have a choice of Bob’s homophobic bakery or driving 20 miles to the next nearest baker, I’d expect an awful lot of people would get their cakes from Bob, even if they really would rather not support his views. The power of convenience is pretty strong, and most people really don’t care that much about things that don’t cause them a problem. And well, I’m only buying a cake, it’s not like I’m actually harming a gay person, right?
It’d be even worse for a pharmacy; you don’t need a cake, but you may well need medicine, and transport to the next closest pharmacy may not be available for everyone in small towns.
Like a “Whites Only” sign.
Frankly, the solution is to bake the fucking cake. If your religion means you can’t provide service to gay people, don’t select a career in service.
Ref @Cheesesteak just above … Or better yet, choose a less assholic religion. Which was pretty much the consensus of the original thread (now with 200 posts) this one spun off of:
Ref this:
See my post in that other thread:
I think you’re ignoring that time has moved on! This is no longer the ‘50’s or ‘60’s. A sign saying No Blacks, No Mexicans, whatever would have exactly the opposite effect as it did then.
Even if you agree with the baker’s view, if you’re running a car dealership in town, do really want to be seen patronizing that shop? I don’t think so.
I think the market would correct for this. And yes, there are spots where it might attract the like minded or garner high fives. But those places are backwaters and those businesses and towns deserve to reap the rewards of no new businesses moving in, no new people wanting to buy houses, and real estate taking a down turn.
Times HAVE changed. All the proof you need is to imagine how vehemently bakers and pharmacies would bitch if this was required.
That was then, this is NOW!
Right, but the deli wouldn’t be providing the ritual, just the food.
I am assuming that the deli in question has a Bar Mitzvah catering package. Otherwise, the hypothetical given makes no sense whatsoever.
So, yeah, if someone was worried about keeping Halal, then Kosher would be acceptable, even if it did not have all the same dishes.
And I would say that that would be religious discrimination, and not be allowed.
Agreed.
I don’t see it as a loophole at all. If someone is an asshole, you don’t have to serve them.
If someone just comes into the deli asking for a Bar Mitzvah style catering package, then they should be accommodated, regardless of their actual beliefs of heritage. If they say that it is to mock those of Jewish faith, then they don’t need to be.
For instance, I had a while back, someone bring in a Golden Retriever that they wanted shaved down. I generally try to talk people out of shaving double coats unless there is a medical reason, so I will ask them what the reason is. If they say it is because of shedding, then I tell them that shaving it won’t do much good, and they’d be better off with a bath and brush package. If they say it is because the dog is hot, then I will explain how the coat actually works to keep them cool. But, in the end if they insist, then I’ll go along with it.
So, when I inquired as to why they want this dog shaved, they said that they were watching it for their roommate, and thought it would be a funny prank for when they got back from their vacation.
I refused, because that’s being a jerk. Do you think that that was some sort of illegal discrimination? Is that a loophole?
Except they can’t, because being gay is not being a jerk. If someone thinks that, then they are being a bigot. They may choose to think that, but they are the ones that are in the wrong.
If a gay couple comes in, and demands giant penis decorations on their cake, then they are being a jerk. If they ask for the same thing that any other happy couple asks for, they are not.
I don’t think that cultural appropriation is a good justification. Otherwise, I’d never be able to eat at half of my favorite restaurants anymore.
You’re referring to the places that elect 75% of the federal House and a similar portion of the Senate. Economically they’re doomed backwaters. Politically they’re powerhouses. Substantially all the present ructions in our nation are about this dichotomy.
I think you’re ignoring WHY it moved on. It moved on because people demanded equality. It wasn’t terribly long ago that laws were passed to deny same sex marriages. To specifically reach out and take away the possibility of gay Americans becoming married.
Don’t kid yourself that these people don’t exist anymore.