Gay Wedding Cakes

[Sleeping in EQ]

Hate the cake, not the baker.

[Northwestcoug]

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.

I think I can improve on the words I've used. Maybe this is a work in progress. How about if you operate in the public sphere, you cannot discriminate against protected classes, as defined by society and law?

Yes, freedom of religion is enshrined in our law. I am trying to draw a distinction, which may not be valid, of keeping both freedom of religion and whatever it is constitutional lawyers call freedom of being discriminated against, in two separate spheres. There should be no law against the practice of religion or religious belief. But in our secular society, I don't find many persuasive arguments that banning discrimination against oppressed minorities in business infringes on expression of religion. In my perfect world, these two spheres can operate independently with the full protection of law. A business owner that holds deeply religious beliefs can practice those as much as he wants in his personal and religious world, and he is protected. In general, I don't think someone's freedom of religion is 'trampled upon' if he is held to a different standard in the public sphere, in a secular society.

[old_gregg]

I think I can improve on the words I've used. Maybe this is a work in progress. How about if you operate in the public sphere, you cannot discriminate against protected classes, as defined by society and law?

Yes, freedom of religion is enshrined in our law. I am trying to draw a distinction, which may not be valid, of keeping both freedom of religion and whatever it is constitutional lawyers call freedom of being discriminated against, in two separate spheres. There should be no law against the practice of religion or religious belief. But in our secular society, I don't find many persuasive arguments that banning discrimination against oppressed minorities in business infringes on expression of religion. In my perfect world, these two spheres can operate independently with the full protection of law. A business owner that holds deeply religious beliefs can practice those as much as he wants in his personal and religious world, and he is protected. In general, I don't think someone's freedom of religion is 'trampled upon' if he is held to a different standard in the public sphere, in a secular society.

very kooky take comrade.

[cowboy]

You should not be forced to take business pornographers. Of course, pornographers are not a protected class and a pornographer makes a choice. LGBTQ individuals are not making a choice.

They're choosing to marry. If the vendor refused to sell them a cake for any occasion, the case would be different. So, using your logic, should BFM be forced to program for gay porn, you know, since he'd be dealing with a protected class?

[Jeff Lebowski]

can somebody - lebowki perhaps since he said it - help me understand how this is different than racial discrimination? TIA

I'm a baker, black guy comes in and asks me to bake a cake for his wedding. sorry won't do that for you because you're black.

gay guy comes in and asks me to bake a cake for his wedding. sorry won't do that for you because you're gay.

I don't see the difference, but to be fair, I'm not very smart.

If someone walks into a bakery and the baker says, "Sorry, we don't serve gays here" then I would agree that it is indistinguishable from racial discrimination and should be banned. But this baker in Colorado says that he has zero problem selling products to gay people and he does it all the time. Cakes, cookies, bread, etc. But when it comes to preparing a product specifically targeted at a gay marriage celebration, he has moral qualms with that.

Most folks here are on record as saying that baking a cake in such circumstances shouldn't violate someone's religious sensibilities. But the fact that you and I think it is dumb is irrelevant. This is arguably a rather narrow niche. Do you really feel comfortable employing the hand of government to force compulsion in this case? Should religious sensibilities not be given any weight in the public sphere? Are you comfortable with that balance (or lack thereof) going forward?

[Northwestcoug]

very kooky take comrade.

I’m just trying my ethical best here. Not kooky in my head, bro. Just need lawyerly training to make better arguments.

[old_gregg]

I’m just trying my ethical best here. Not kooky in my head, bro. Just need lawyerly training to make better arguments.

people should be free to discriminate in all aspects of their lives so long as their discrimination doesn’t threaten others’ access to essential services.

[Northwestcoug]

people should be free to discriminate in all aspects of their lives so long as their discrimination doesn’t threaten others’ access to essential services.

That’s a kooky Libertarian take. When did you start listening to the UT/Walter faction here?

[old_gregg]

That’s a kooky Libertarian take. When did you start listening to the UT/Walter faction here?

certainly not a libertarian take

[Art Vandelay]

A friend of my wife works for aforementioned florist (I believe their case is at whatever comes after the state Supreme Court. District?). Every time the case is brought up in the news, there is a huge surge in business. This was especially true after they lost the appeal at the state. Also, all the legal costs are being covered by some conservative group. I’m sure the stress and being labeled homophobic hasn’t been worth it, but the whole debacle has been otherwise profitable.

[Northwestcoug]

certainly not a libertarian take

Riiiiiight. Certainly not a liberal take.

[Art Vandelay]

That’s a kooky Libertarian take. When did you start listening to the UT/Walter faction here?

I wish I had listened (known) to the UT/Walter faction when I was in school and made a boatload of money before I was 30. I’m not sure what political party that falls under, but I endorse it.

[creekster]

That’s a kooky Libertarian take. When did you start listening to the UT/Walter faction here?

That is not libertarian. That is how the constitution and bill of rights work. You can believe what ever you want. It amazes me how many people think it is the government’s job to regulate our life and choices. It is not. The constitution and bill of rights was set up specifically to prevent that. OG can be a jerk, but he is spot on here.

[old_gregg]

That is not libertarian. That is how the constitution and bill of rights work. You can believe what ever you want. It amazes me how many people think it is the government’s job to regulate our life and choices. It is not. The constitution and bill of rights was set up specifically to prevent that. OG can be a jerk, but he is spot on here.

thanks dad

[Northwestcoug]

That is not libertarian. That is how the constitution and bill of rights work. You can believe what ever you want. It amazes me how many people think it is the government’s job to regulate our life and choices. It is not. The constitution and bill of rights was set up specifically to prevent that. OG can be a jerk, but he is spot on here.

Oh sure. Cue the lawyer protecting his own!
Is there not a libertarian here that will confirm its core belief is to let people believe and do whatever they want, so long as other people aren’t harmed? Constitutional or not, that’s essentially what OG said.