4 ms·

I still don't understand the gay wedding cake argument. If I'm a baker, why can't I refuse to make certain cakes? I mean, I would never turn away a customer, b

by ythl 10y ago

I still don't understand the gay wedding cake argument. If I'm a baker, why can't I refuse to make certain cakes? I mean, I would never turn away a customer, but if the customer asked me to write obscene things on the cake, don't I have the right to refuse their request? "I'd like to have a rainbow cake" "ok" "with little penises sticking out of it for my gay wedding" "no, sorry." What's wrong with that? It's no different from refusing a straight man's request to have a cake with the outline of a nude woman on it.

talmand 10y ago
The difference is whether you belong to a protected class of people as dictated by the government. Strangely, often the difference in those cases is also how you respond. "I want a cake for my gay wedding." "Sorry, I'm too busy to fulfill your request." Likely nothing comes of it. "I want a cake for my gay wedding." "No, I don't support your lifestyle and I'll pray for your soul." Lawsuit. Granted, extreme example of a response there. Lesson is, just say no but don't say why.
danso 10y ago
AFAIK, refusal of service is up to the states: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... > Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) contending that Masterpiece had violated this law. Earlier this year, the CCRD ruled that Phillips illegally discriminated against Mullins and Craig. Today’s decision from Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirms that finding. Federal law, however, prohibits discrimination against those seeking housing, employment, credit, or disaster relief.
maxerickson 10y ago
You're manufacturing your example. The refusal in a famous case wasn't based on lascivious content, it was based on the people buying the cake. http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate...
- ythl 10y ago
  Well, in that case I agree. You should not be able to refuse service based on the person, but you should be able to refuse service based on the request.
DanBC 10y ago
Where the fuck did you get "with little penises sticking out of it" from? What the hell is wrong with you?
mercutio2 10y ago
To be clear, the case in question involved a baker turning away the customer purely because of who the customer was, nothing about the cake they requested. This is obnoxious, but probably doesn't need to be illegal, so I suspect we agree.

by ythl 10y ago

talmand 10y ago

The difference is whether you belong to a protected class of people as dictated by the government. Strangely, often the difference in those cases is also how you respond. "I want a cake for my gay wedding." "Sorry, I'm too busy to fulfill your request." Likely nothing comes of it. "I want a cake for my gay wedding." "No, I don't support your lifestyle and I'll pray for your soul." Lawsuit. Granted, extreme example of a response there. Lesson is, just say no but don't say why.

danso 10y ago

AFAIK, refusal of service is up to the states: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... > Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) contending that Masterpiece had violated this law. Earlier this year, the CCRD ruled that Phillips illegally discriminated against Mullins and Craig. Today’s decision from Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirms that finding. Federal law, however, prohibits discrimination against those seeking housing, employment, credit, or disaster relief.

maxerickson 10y ago

You're manufacturing your example. The refusal in a famous case wasn't based on lascivious content, it was based on the people buying the cake. http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate...

ythl 10y ago
Well, in that case I agree. You should not be able to refuse service based on the person, but you should be able to refuse service based on the request.

DanBC 10y ago

Where the fuck did you get "with little penises sticking out of it" from? What the hell is wrong with you?

mercutio2 10y ago

To be clear, the case in question involved a baker turning away the customer purely because of who the customer was, nothing about the cake they requested. This is obnoxious, but probably doesn't need to be illegal, so I suspect we agree.