Are the defendants in these cases saying that they refused to sell any cake to a gay couple? Or that they refused to make a certain type of cake that basically said “F the Christians, we’re getting married!” [exaggerating, of course]
Here’s another example: So let’s say, hypothetically, that I go to Malik Shabazz’s Trophy Hut and ask them to make a trophy for my hockey league. They tell me that they pretty much cater to black people, and don’t make hockey trophies at all. Can I sue them for discrimination? Will I have to prove that they have made a hockey trophy in the past to win my case? Or will that matter at all?
mercy. and here I thot I was advocating the opposite. I am saying people should never be forced to do something against their conscience. did I say something to the contrary?
Society makes you do stuff you don’t want to do all the time. That’s basically the definition of “society.”
I don’t give a F about conscience or religion. I think that you should be able to choose who you do business with. Selling a cake to my neighbor’s kid shouldn’t obligate me to make a cake for every person that wants one. I get to choose who I buy stuff from. Shouldn’t I get to choose who I sell stuff to?
What I’m saying is that private business owners should be allowed to discriminate. The government cannot.
The key question here is “If you were a black guy and asked for a hockey trophy, would they have made you one?”
That’s not always an easy one to prove. But if they sold 35 hockey trophies this month and have a portfolio of black guys posing with hockey trophies, you’ve probably got a case. Likewise, if they advertise something like “Custom trophies-- we make anything!” and regularly make oddball trophies, you’ve got a case. Or if they say something like “I’m sorry, but I’m not comfortable encouraging your white-guy lifestyle,” that’s a giveaway.
But if they work from a handful of molds and just don’t have hockey, that’s fine. Or if the place they order the statues from only has hockey on back order, that fine. The only thing that’s not fine is “We’d totally make you a hockey trophy, except that we don’t serve whites.”
How is baking a cake violating someone’s conscience? Or taking photographs? Or providing floral arrangements?
You’re not solemnizing the proceedings, or in any way being a party to the marriage vows themselves. You’re merely providing a product or service for this event. You don’t have to agree with the parties involved. Your cake or your photos or your flowers aren’t going to make God wrathful and send you to hell. You’re running a business and providing something people want to pay you for.
“Christian businesses” hiding behind “religious liberty” to avoid working with gay people is just ridiculous. Baking a cake for a gay couple is not a sin. Nor does it show you approve of their activities. How many of these “Christian” bakers refuse to provide cakes for marriages of divorced people? Isn’t that just as sinful, heck, even more so if you go by what Jesus actually said? Doesn’t that show approval of sinful behavior just as much?
Don’t worry. We know what you mean by “my religious liberty is being restricted!” You think gays are icky. Tough. Deal with it, or find another vocation.
IDK if you could sue them due to a hockey cake, probably not, I think a better example would be a “hippie” bookstore that was strongly anti religious not selling books to someone wearing a cross.
I don’t want to and it is against my conscience are really beside the point. People may be bothered if they have to make a wedding cake for a gay person, but since there is nothing morally wrong with being gay, their negative feelings on the matter are irrelevant.
So? It’s still unfair to discriminate. Plus, for an item like a wedding cake most people want personal service.
Please give an example of this happening
:smack:…No, the baker doesn’t have to “make any cake that anyone requests”. The baker can choose to only make strawberry cakes with buttercream icing decorated with roses if that’s all he wants to sell. It would be a lousy business decision, for sure, but the baker is allowed to choose what products he carries in his shop.
But if a gay couple wants to buy a strawberry cake with buttercream icing decorated with roses to serve at their wedding - the exact same cake he bakes for straight people with nary a thought as to where and how it will be consumed- he should have to sell it to them.
They refused to sell wedding cakes to gay couples, but would sell them to straight couples. They would, apparently, sell gay people other kinds of cake. This is still discrimination - in the history of the American Civil Rights movement, it’s very nearly the archetypical form of discrimination. While there were plenty of “whites only” businesses in the Jim Crow south, the big battles were over businesses that offered unequal services. Blacks were allowed in Woolworths - just not at the lunch counter. Rosa Parks wasn’t refused service on the bus entirely, just the right to sit where she wanted on it. Brown versus the Board of Education wasn’t about the state offering no education to black students, but over offering a shitty education to black students.
The bakery in question will make a custom cake for a straight couple. They won’t make one for a gay couple. Regardless of how many other confections they’re willing to sell to gays, that’s still discrimination.
If you sell a cake in your home only to friends, that is not a public business. You need to come up with a better hypothetical delima.
But choosing to buy your widget from Steve’s widget shop instead of Bob’s widget shop is not discrimination. If you choose not to shop at Bob’s widget shop because Bob was gay, that would be a from of discrimination, but, you are not affecting the public at large. Having a widget shop and not doing business with people in category does affect the public at large.
This slippery slope is going to destroy us any day now. We’ve required businesses serve people equally for over 50 years now. Any day now though, the end times will come as a result.
Within living memory, businesses were required by law to discriminate against Blacks in many places. (And against Hispanics too, though that’s not as widely remembered.) Even in places where racial segregation was not required by law, the police often lead or encouraged violence against any integrated business. The moral of the Jim Crow era is “government sucks”. The Jim Crow era cannot return unless government re-institutes it.
Well, if you really really really don’t want to bake cakes to sell to people, I would opine that maybe “baker” or “cake shop owner” was not a smart career choice.
The internet.
Why should we experiment with your hypothesis?
Greensboro, North Carolina did not have any laws requiring Woolworths to segregate their lunch counters. Black people were allowed to shop in the stores, they just weren’t allowed to eat at the restaurant.
What is to be gained by repealing the civil rights act?
Where the law is concerned, wants and feelings should be highly relevant. Our government was founded to guarantee us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That means each person should be allowed to decide what is important to himself or herself and act accordingly, so long as it doesn’t harm others. Some people believe that being gay is wrong. Some believe that eating pork is wrong. Some believe that growing GMOs is wrong. I disagree with all three positions, but I think all people, including business people, have the right to lead their own lives as they want.
No. Just go get your cake at another bakery. This is not a difficult thing to do. By you using the state to force a baker to bake a cake that goes against his conscience, it’s YOU who are forcing your beliefs down someone else throat.
The internet has not prevented the small town I live in from being racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic. The internet might very well pick up the story if a bakery in this town did refuse to bake a gay couple’s wedding cake. But that is not really the point. The point is about what is allowed, both officially and unofficially. There will allways be little towns that are racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic as long as that type of attitude is allowed to exist “to some degree”. Small towns will allways be worse than large ones in this aspect.
Seriously?
Why should we care about their “conscience”?