Gay Wedding Cakes

[falafel]

I'd like an answer to this question as well.

I think the only way you can answer it and draw and distinction is if you believe that there is some choice involved with being LGTBQ. I don't think that there is any choice involved, so I see no difference.

I think you may be right about that. But regardless, I'll take a stab at a response.

The difference is based on one's religious beliefs. I'm not aware of any religion that preaches that its a sin to be black, or that society should discourage people from "being black." But there are certainly a large number of people (including a large number within your own church, SMR) that feel that it encouraging gay marriage in any form is contrary to their religion's teachings.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I think you may be right about that. But regardless, I'll take a stab at a response.

The difference is based on one's religious beliefs. I'm not aware of any religion that preaches that its a sin to be black, or that society should discourage people from "being black." But there are certainly a large number of people (including a large number within your own church, SMR) that feel that it encouraging gay marriage in any form is contrary to their religion's teachings.

Even under that explanation, it is still discrimination. It is just religiously justified discrimination.

[falafel]

Even under that explanation, it is still discrimination. It is just religiously justified discrimination.

Sure. But we discriminate all the time on any number of subjects. We are fine with some types of discrimination, and abhor others. The debate is whether people have the right to include gay marriage in their list of acceptable discrimination.

[Art Vandelay]

Sure. But we discriminate all the time on any number of subjects. We are fine with some types of discrimination, and abhor others. The debate is whether people have the right to include gay marriage in their list of acceptable discrimination.

As I stated above I think the baker should have just made the cake. Based upon what I've seen in movies, Gay weddings look a lot funner than most traditional weddings anyway. If I was the Cake Boss, my only requirement would be no smashing the cake into one another's face.

I do appreciate the argument falafel is trying to make. What if a straight couple wanted a sexually explicit (as defined by the baker) cake for their wedding? Would the same argument apply?

[falafel]

As I stated above I think the baker should have just made the cake. Based upon what I've seen in movies, Gay weddings look a lot funner than most traditional weddings anyway. If I was the Cake Boss, my only requirement would be no smashing the cake into one another's face.

I do appreciate the argument falafel is trying to make. What if a straight couple wanted a sexually explicit (as defined by the baker) cake for their wedding? Would the same argument apply?

Spoiler for NSFW Cakes:

[Eddie]

One of the interesting things about this case is differences of opinion. George Will argues that the cake baker does not have a case. David French of NRO disagrees:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-still-obtains

That's an interesting point, when they describe the cake as "art". My cousin makes wedding cakes - more often than not at least 1 of the layers is simply a foam cutout covered in frosting. Hard to argue that the cake is food when they are more interested in what it looks like than whether or not it is even edible.

---

So - we're talking about "protected classes", which includes: race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex and/or sexual orientation, disability, veteran status, height, weight, marital status - am I missing anything?

Does that mean you can discriminate on any other grounds as long as it doesn't fall into one of those?

Next question - if "religion" is a protected class, how is the religion of both individuals within an exchange not part of the consideration?

Honestly - I think this is kind of dumb. Count me among those who would just bake the dumb cake.

On the other hand - do you really want someone who doesn't want to make your wedding cake making your wedding cake? This is "the most special day in your life" and you're bringing someone into it who REALLY doesn't want to be there? Why would you do that? Are you convinced they'll be doing their best work? Or that they'll be on time?

I've interacted with people who acted like they weren't too interested in my business at the time, so I took my business elsewhere. Is this the ONLY bakery that makes wedding cakes in the area? That's about the only reason I can even think of to not be looking elsewhere.

[All-American]

On the other hand - do you really want someone who doesn't want to make your wedding cake making your wedding cake? This is "the most special day in your life" and you're bringing someone into it who REALLY doesn't want to be there? Why would you do that? Are you convinced they'll be doing their best work? Or that they'll be on time?

I've interacted with people who acted like they weren't too interested in my business at the time, so I took my business elsewhere. Is this the ONLY bakery that makes wedding cakes in the area? That's about the only reason I can even think of to not be looking elsewhere.

This gets at what I think is the true underlying issue. Do they really care about having that specific baker bake them a cake? Probably not. Would you really want somebody who believes what you are doing violates their most deeply felt beliefs participating in your big day? I doubt it. This isn't about the cake. It's a challenge to the propriety of believing that gay marriage violates your religious beliefs.

That belief might be wrong and it might be right, but I don't like government force being used as the vehicle to fight that battle.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Spoiler for NSFW Cakes:

There is not enough blood for that cake to represent a straight OP delivery

[smokymountainrain]

I think you may be right about that. But regardless, I'll take a stab at a response.

The difference is based on one's religious beliefs. I'm not aware of any religion that preaches that its a sin to be black, or that society should discourage people from "being black." But there are certainly a large number of people (including a large number within your own church, SMR) that feel that it encouraging gay marriage in any form is contrary to their religion's teachings.

its an answer. probably even a good answer. but not an acceptable one. but thanks for the thoughtful response.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This gets at what I think is the true underlying issue. Do they really care about having that specific baker bake them a cake? Probably not. Would you really want somebody who believes what you are doing violates their most deeply felt beliefs participating in your big day? I doubt it. This isn't about the cake. It's a challenge to the propriety of believing that gay marriage violates your religious beliefs.

That belief might be wrong and it might be right, but I don't like government force being used as the vehicle to fight that battle.

Yeah I think it’s dumb to refuse to bake the cake. But I think it’s equally dumb to force the baker to bake the cake.

[Crockett]

I'd like an answer to this question as well.

I think the only way you can answer it and draw and distinction is if you believe that there is some choice involved with being LGTBQ. I don't think that there is any choice involved, so I see no difference.

It's not the only difference. Some also see providing a wedding cake, floral services, renting out your property for a wedding ceremony, etc. is more than providing a simple product. It's being part of a ceremony or act that they do not want to endorse or support. None of these bakers refuse to sell cakes or cookies to someone who is gay and comes into their store. It's the involvement in the ceremony that is the issue.

Furthermore, there are always plenty of alternatives to providing cakes or whatever, so someone could always get the cake, etc. that they want elsewhere. So, this has become a way to legally punish anyone that possesses the wrong ideas. Remember when gay marriage advocates used to say how does two gay people wanting to get married hurt you? Well, because you are forced to care now or your livelihood is threatened. They were never going to stop there and the arguments that that is all they wanted were dishonest at the time. All thoughtcrime must eradicated and stuff.

[Lost Student]

That's an interesting point, when they describe the cake as "art". My cousin makes wedding cakes - more often than not at least 1 of the layers is simply a foam cutout covered in frosting. Hard to argue that the cake is food when they are more interested in what it looks like than whether or not it is even edible.

---

So - we're talking about "protected classes", which includes: race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex and/or sexual orientation, disability, veteran status, height, weight, marital status - am I missing anything?

Does that mean you can discriminate on any other grounds as long as it doesn't fall into one of those?

Next question - if "religion" is a protected class, how is the religion of both individuals within an exchange not part of the consideration?

Honestly - I think this is kind of dumb. Count me among those who would just bake the dumb cake.
...

That's your first problem. I've heard that there's no baking involved--they just use a foam cutout covered in frosting.

[Northwestcoug]

So, when the pornographers come to my business demanding I set up a website for them, I'm not allowed to refuse them because it goes against my religious/moral beliefs? You're full of it.

This isn't a hypothetical, by the way. As previously stated, my company currently refuses to accept business from pornographers.

In general, I think the conservative/religious objections to porn are overblown. But even I am not persuaded by your implicit argument that pornographers are in the same oppressed class as gays/lesbians and other minorities.

In all seriousness, I think businesses should have a significant amount of leeway deciding who to do business with. In your situation, it probably makes good business sense to reject pornography work. And if you have other objections associating with other groups, whether based on a community's perception or a judgement about general character, that should be OK. But not if your business's decision is based on systemic oppression of a minority class. They should be treated based on the same civic judgment as you would give any other citizen. That's where I'm drawing my black and white line.

If it were that simple the case never would have made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

I never said that a post-modern society free of historical biases and prejudices would be easy; I only said it would be worth it.

And I'm not arguing that my opinion is an easy or obvious answer to society. But it is an overarching statement that I hope would guide the necessary and messy deliberations SCOTUS (and society) needs to have.

[falafel]

its an answer. probably even a good answer. but not an acceptable one. but thanks for the thoughtful response.

Actually, it probably isn't. But oh well.

[falafel]

I guess 'business world' is a poor term. Let me try to state my general opinion. If you own a business, and you receive all the benefits the law affords you for having a business, the law can forbid you from discriminating against groups of customers based on personal prejudices. And I think the government should protect against discrimination, even if your business doesn't provide essential services.



I see no easy distinction. Both forms of discrimination are based on prejudices that should have no place in society. If there is no rational societal basis for discrimination, it shouldn't be tolerated in private business. Again, anyone who claims freedom of religion for prejudicial thought/action can run with it in their church or private life. If your business operates in the private sector, leave your religious beliefs behind. There should be a societal responsibility to treat all citizens fairly.

This is troubling. Freedom of religion is a real thing, a protected right. I don't believe the right ends when you leave your house or your church and step into your business. Freedom of religion for all, but only behind closed doors.

Another issue is the definition of "personal prejudices." Surely you can see that what one group defines as a personal prejudice, another defines as a deeply held religious belief. While the goal of protecting against "discrimination" might sound nice in a hypothetical, it is extremely difficult in practice. Especially where, as described above, protecting one group's rights has the effect of trampling on another group's rights.