Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Cutlass, Aug 14, 2018.
I'm with Berzerker on this one.
From wikipedia, that does not seem to be the case:
So he didn't refuse to sell them stuff, he just didn't want to make a personalized cake for their wedding?
Bah, looks like a non-issue to me. I mean the guy is probably a bigot, I don't really care if he loses in court, but in all honesty I don't see much of a case here. This looks less like a grand crusade for equality than a lot of pettiness from all parties.
Hmm so tim just completely made that up? Or was that erroneously reported somewhere?
If he doesn't make it, he can't sell it now, can he?
He also refused to sell wedding cakes to six other gay couples. How many cake make a crusade?
You say that like it would be surprising...
The difference is that he did not refuse service for the couple, he just refused to create a specific piece of art. They were free to buy anything else in his shop, just not the personalized marriage cake that they wanted. They were not discriminated against because they're gay, but because they wanted the artist to create something that he was not comfortable with.
Well there is a distinction between refusing to sell them products available at the store, which was not the case, and refusing to work on a particular project.
Again, if I'm getting it right, he didn't refuse to sell them stuff in general, just to make personalized cakes he didn't agree with.
Again, I don't sympathize with bigots, but the legal case against him seems very weak, and I don't see why gay couples would go to this bakery to begin with... Is he some sort of local cake monopolist?
Well, I'd imagine they went to his store because it was convenient or for some other normal reason. There's no reason to expect that they would know he would deny them service.
The legal case against him is based on US law that requires businesses not to discriminate against protected categories. Sexual orientation is a protected category under Colorado's civil rights statute. Supreme court previously found for the baker on the technicality that the Colorado authority (can't remember exactly what it's called) responsible for initially adjudicating this made prejudiced statements against his religious beliefs. That is unlikely to happen this time around.
Sure man. It isn't refusal of service to not sell them what they came for as long as you are willing to sell them things that they aren't interested in buying.
You say that as if it were wrong, but it's entirely reasonable.
I sometimes do art commissions. When somebody comes to me and asks me to draw a girl being raped by a tentacle monster, then I'm going to say "No, thanks". That's my right as an artist. As is it the right of the baker to decline works of art that go against his personal beliefs. If he doesn't want to do a certain work of art that goes against the things that he likes, that's a totally different thing than to say: "I won't serve you, because you're gay. Get out of my bakery!"
How disgusting is it to tell an artist that they have to do whatever any customer wants with no freedom to choose what they want to create?
Yeah, I'm not really buying into the "baker as artist" defense.
Even if you don't treat it as a piece of art, it's clearly a case where a person is commissioned for a project that is creative in nature and requires its creator to put his artistic energy into the creation. It is a customized "one time"-product that he creates for a specific purpose. If the person does not like the product he is asked to create, he should be allowed to decline the request.
Fair enough, I though the baker was some sort of well known Christian fundy.
As for the cake issue... I'm still not sure. I guess it depends if we treat the wedding cake as a commodity or some sort of "project". Normally (I mean in most countries, I of course don't know the specifics of Colorado law) firms are forced to sell their standard products to anyone, without discrimination. But they don't have to take on projects they don't like. Architecture firms for instance are not obliged to accept a project they think will be ugly or offensive to their sensitivity in any way.
If the baker had refused to sell them some ready-made stuff that was on sale on his store, the case would be very clear cut. But I'm not sure about him being obliged to bake a cake to demand with a theme he disapproves of.
Again - I don't know what sort of idiot thinks God would punish someone for baking a cake for a same sex wedding. He is certainly guilty of being an idiot. Personally I would not hit cakes at his store. But I don't think what he did should be a crime.
"Personalized intricate and decorative cakes pertaining to specific subject matter and carrying specific symbolism produced by a bakery at a rate of four or five a week are not art but are instead intrinsic elements of the customer him/herself" is a necessary stipulation to make the Colorado Human Rights Commissions conclusions sensible at all. You'll note that they got SCOTUSsmacked 7-2 last time and are doubling down. There's a reason the baker/artist/factory assembly worker is pushing it this time.
To me, saying that a baker "creating" a cake is an artist is like saying that when I paint the house I'm an artist.
*shrug* my own position on this is that I don't understand why people have, like, traditional ("traditional" here meaning in the context of 21st century US) weddings at all, because I hate dressing up, dancing, *and* large decorative cakes (my favorite wedding I've been to was my aunt's third, in which there was a quick ceremony on the beach and then we all sat down for an unstructured dinner as the reception) but I also have never been refused service for anything so the only thing I can really say is that I don't know how I would react if I were in the couple's situation here.
It's not being treated as a crime. The proceedings against him are civil, not criminal.
what is the relevant difference between a priest and baker 'blessing' a wedding with their words or decoration?
Remember that old saw about how there are no stupid questions?
And that other one about how there's always an exception to prove the rule?
One takes a lifetime of training and the other you can get on the internet in 5 minutes.
Separate names with a comma.