In the US I think the more familiar word would be “Gypsy” although AIUI that has derogatory overtones to it.
So, you do know you can’t sue someone just because they do something that angers you, right? IINAL, but I know you have to have something called a “cause of action” and you have to prove that the person you are suing did something wrong.
The Leviticus Evangelical Bakery offered a cake for sale. Adam gave the store money in exchange for the cake. When the bakery gave Adam the cake, in exchange for the money - absent a contract stating otherwise- the bakery also relinquished their interest in the cake. If they wanted to, Adam and Steve could’ve taken the cake straight to their bedroom and screwed it vigorously all night while taking pictures without it being any of the baker’s business because the cake is theirs.
And Adam and Steve have no legal obligation to make small talk with the baker about their personal lives. They have no legal obligation to even tell the truth about their plans for the cake in the unlikely event the baker presses them for information.
They certainly can’t be legally expected to acknowledge that their lifestyle is so sinful that the mere act of doing business with them will send the poor baker straight into the eternal flames of hell ( or he77, as it were).
So, what did they do wrong?
The onus is on the baker. If you sincerely believe that doing business with a sinner - even unwittingly- can send you straight into the flames of hell maybe ( in the same way that a devout Muslim might not want to go into the bacon business ) retail commerce is not the calling for you.
They lied to obtain a product the baker wouldn’t have created for them and sold to them. An evangelical baker whose business is severally harmed (and that could happen in some evangelical communities) because of wedding cake obtained through fraudulent means would probably have a cause of action. And plenty of wedding vendors interview extensively before taking clients because their reputations (and prices) are based on their exclusivity…
Good, old planet, Earth, in the good, slightly, old USA. As a minority, I prefer vendors and people in general who are honest about their attitudes and emotions. It makes it easier to find vendors that actually want my business and I don’t suffer from substandard goods and service by people who don’t. That’s why I find whole temper tantrum by gays because a vendor doesn’t want to be hired by them, quite bluntly, stupid. Forcing someone to make a cake or dress or play music, etc., at your wedding is going to result in two things 1.) the vendor’s hatred will intensify and be confirm ed and 2.) the product or service will be substandard.
Except we know from experience your end results are untrue. The change in law forced acceptance of African Americans and overall they are less hated and do not constantly receive substandard service or products. Granted it’s not a perfect system and some black people do still face discrimination based on race, but it’s certainly better than what it was.
No one is forcing baker’s to attend gay weddings. The law says they can not refuse service based on sexual orientation. They can’t pick and choose who is worthy of a cake based on a person’s protected class status.
We’ve discussed at lengths the merits of artistic license in other threads. I don’t think anyone here is arguing artistic expression should not be given the exception it recieves. No one is forcing anyone to provide unique products. Could you stop trying to sneak it into the conversation?
If you want the law changed, you should deminstate to the rest of us why. So far the only reason presented is to give bigots more control over people’s lives. To me empowering bigots is an entirely unconvincing argument.
I don’t think gay people actually want the bigot assholes to bake cakes for them.
In Ann Hedonia’s hypothetical, they did not lie. They never said anything that wasn’t absolutely true.
And…even if they did lie, so what? “Hi, I’m buying this cake for my kid’s birthday party.” Takes it home and eats it himself. Let’s say the baker wouldn’t have sold it to him if he knew that. Okay: how is the baker harmed? What’s the basis for his complaint?
Say the guy takes the cake home and fucks it (as in a variant of the hypothetical upthread.) The baker certainly wouldn’t have sold it to him as a sex toy. But, again, so what? How is the baker harmed? What conceivable remedy could he seek?
There are no criminal or civil laws requiring us to be honest with vendors when buying their products!
Only in some jurisdictions, not nationwide.
Since it’s not the law nationwide, and you would like it to be, it’s up to You to demonstrate why.
Of course, not, I’m an adult that understands that everyone has a right to choose who they do business with.
I know this point keeps bothering you and I kind of understand. But where the specific bakery sexual orientation was a protected class that’s why it came up. It is the law there, that’s why it came up.
I specifically said
[QUOTE=boytyperanma]
They can’t pick and choose who is worthy of a cake based on a person’s protected class status.
[/QUOTE]
Which is the law throughout the country. This thread is not specific to gay people. ZPG Zealot’s complaints are not specific to gay people, I don’t think she has any issues with gay people, she objects to the nationwide law that prevents her from legally refusing service to certain people because of their protected class status.
Now I’ll clarify just in case you still don’t understand.
If you want to repeal the existing law, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, I’d recommend you provide a convincing argument for doing so.
You’ve never bought an expensive custom-made wedding cake or custom made wedding clothing have you? They can be unique products. They can be works of art. Musicians are artist and should not be compelled to take clients they do not want. On a smaller scale the typical little bakery doesn’t have pre-made wedding cakes to sell. The cakes are ordered by the customer and custom-made.
I think we all know what a lie by omission is. And some vendors especially in hospitality and entertainment already require various legally binding contracts be signed before allowing someone to buy their products such as occurs with security deposits and payment plans. Scenarios like Ann Hedonia suggest will only aggravate this problem.
Okay. The store I work out carries a gift bag with three different sayings:
- For The Bride and Groom
- For The Two of You
- For The Happy Couple
A customer brought these three to the register today, foaming at the mouth that the latter two were “promoting homosexuality.”
What did he expect us to do, stop carrying them? Burn them? Not allow anyone to purchase them unless they have a signed, notarized statement that they are buying them for a straight couple?
I wish I’d been there. I’d have pointed out that the only thing most retail stores “promote” is making a profit of some kind. And there are more people on the other side of the equation from him/her willing to spend their money on companies that DON’T publicly hate.
(I say that I wish I’d been there because you, as a store employee, obviously can’t just up and say that kind of thing.)
I’m not sure can you please clarify who is lying by omission? Does the bigoted shop keeper have a sign saying ‘No gays allowed’?
If they don’t tell me they are a bigot am I supposed to let them know I’m gay just in case?
As to creative expression in the specific case brought up in this thread the bakery had every opportunity to present a defense based on artistic expression. They failed to do so. They wanted to refuse service on religious grounds and they wanted to be able to publish private individuals names with predictable consiquences. They lost that cas3.
If you have a specific example were someone was forced to create a unique artistic piece in order to avoid discriminating against a protected class please bring it to our attention so we can Wieght it’s merits
Your hypotheticals are lacking and are not bringing further debate as no one is objecting to unique artistic expression being exempt from the law.
Where has he been? I’ve seen all three for decades.
Why should my failure to tell a vendor about my sex life constitute a “lie by omission”? In my wild and reckless youth I purchased food products with the express intent of using them to facilitate acts of both adultery and sodomy and I never once realized I was legally obligated to tell the store clerk the real reason why I was buying whipped cream, canned peaches and pudding pops. In fact, I never even once considered the religious beliefs of the guy working the cash register.
I’ve been shopping 3 or 4 times this week alone and I never told one clerk or shopkeeper about my private life and no one has ever questioned this omission. I’ve done a lot of shopping in my life and I’ve never been compelled to discuss my sex life with a cashier and I’ve never heard anyone else do so either.
My short answer to ZPG is “So what?, its still not actionable.” The lie by omission thing makes absolutely no sense. Am I “lying by omission” if I don’t disclose my profession to the baker? If I don’t disclose my income? If I don’t tell him the age of my fiancé? If I don’t tell the baker that I’m Jewish? If I don’t tell the baker about my criminal record? If I don’t disclose my parent’s nationalities? Why should I even think that the baker would care about the gender of my fiancé ?
Now THIS is wildly out of synch with your username… 
In terms of public accommodation, gays are NOT a protected class in most of the United States, which you don’t seem to understand.
Do you even know in which jurisdiction Ms. Zealot resides? Isn’t possible, or even likely, that they are not a protected class where she does business?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply. Convince us that the protections offered by Oregon, et al., should be applied nationwide?