4 ms·

The baker did not refuse to service the individuals in question. He told them that he's not willing to bake a cake that, in his view, promotes homosexuality bec

The baker did not refuse to service the individuals in question. He told them that he's not willing to bake a cake that, in his view, promotes homosexuality because it goes against his religious views, but he would be willing to bake them anything else or sell them anything within the shop. He was not refusing service to them, but refusing to allow that one specific 'topic'. And he also would have refused service if, for instance, a heterosexual couple wanted him to bake a cake that, in his view, promoted homosexuality. This is a regular part of his practice. For instance he also refuses to bake Halloween related goods, again believing that it goes against his faith. Another issue that's not considered in this case is that another [gay owned] bakery, in extremely close vicinity to the 'no gay cakes' bakery, was asked to bake in the shape of a bible with a quote stating that homosexuality was a sin. They refused to do so, and this decision was upheld [locally]. That is extremely inconsistent and evidence of bias and prejudice in the local enforcement of law. I think most people don't realize that this case is actually pending judgement from the US Supreme Court. And the implications are enormous. If they judge against him, it's going to open the door to all sorts of things, such as for instance, the behavior of online sites. It would also open the door to trolling in real life like the aforementioned 'bible cake' or even, for instance, going into an Islamic owned shop and forcing them to blaspheme. Of course if the court rules in favor of him then it's also going to open the door to discrimination in the same form as a child might tease another of, 'not touching you, not touching you!' as they hover their finger 1 cm away from a person. I'm actually somewhat surprised they chose to hear it because of this. There is no good judgement, but now they're going to have to decide one way or the other - setting national precedent.

Nerdoid 8y ago
> That is extremely inconsistent and evidence of bias and prejudice in the local enforcement of law. That is not inconsistent, as one is denying someone based on what they are, and the other is denying someone based on harassment. The gay couple didn't ask the baker to write on the cake that heterosexuality was immoral. There's an obvious difference between affirming the culture of the customer, and antagonistically denying the culture of the producer. And I do think think that the baker's refusal was about what they are, since the conditions to bake the cake required that it didn't acknowledge what they are. It's like saying, "I will bake a cake for a black person, but only if it doesn't reference black culture in any way."
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  The religious baker was being asked to engage in an action that's deeply disparaging of his beliefs and values. The gay baker was being asked to engage in an action that's deeply disparaging of his beliefs and values. This is the problem with social laws. It's easy to see things from our own perspectives, without considering that what 'we' consider perfectly reasonable can be perfectly offensive to another individual. One of the most crucial issues in forcing people to engage in behavior that they find offensive is that it goes both ways.
  - daxorid 8y ago
    I believe the standard retort to this is that religion is a choice, whereas sexual orientation is not. Which is understandable as far as it goes, except it is the sole exception to the accepted blank slate belief of sociologists everywhere. We carve out a very visible exception in this domain. Zeitgeist: Our behaviors are all socialized into us, with the sole exception of sexual orientation. Contrast with the perspective that one's religion is merely a choice, such that after being socialized into a belief system for one's most formative eighteen years, one can simply toss it away thereafter.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      Absolutely, but the issue here is that religion is a protected class under the law. The key point here is that a 'creator' generally cannot be forced to use their talents to create something that they do not want to. However can people 'override' this and force people to create things they normally would not, if the thing being requested falls under the domain of a protected class? For instance 'satanists' are now requesting the same baker create cakes celebrating the birth of Lucifer with upside down crosses and associated imagery, arguing that it's an expression of their religion, implicitly with threats to sue if the baker doesn't abide.
soundwave106 8y ago
The Bible cake story is new to me, so I had to Google it. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/opinion/gay-wedding-cake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/opinion/gay-wedding-cake....) Apparently there is a small but critical nuance between the stories. Per this article, in the Bible quote incident, the owner was willing to sell the cake, and do everything except putting a quote on it -- even offering the icing to write those words if they wanted. In the gay cake incident, the owner was willing to sell the couple anything else in the store -- but the cake itself was not allowed to be bought. "Protected classes" are one of the few government mandated restrictions for the freedom of businesses to refuse service (something which I have some mixed feelings on, but given some of the climate that happened without these protections, I find them completely understandable). It's possible that the judgement will end up reading very narrowly -- for instance, if you use the above reasoning, it would be legal to discriminate on the messaging but illegal to discriminate on the product. (In other words, if the baker in the homosexual couple case didn't sell a homosexual marriage themed case, but would sell a generic cake and let the homosexual couple decorate it in any way they want, that would have been legal under this particular interpretation.) This is just an example, it's not the only way a narrow reading could go down, but there are probably more solutions out there then all one way vs. another.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  The baker has stated in front of the supreme court that he would have been more than happy to sell them an off the-shelf-cake if that was requested, as opposed to him creating a wedding cake specifically for their wedding. One of the big problems here is that the interaction went from 0 to extremely hostile instantly. The couple asked about a wedding cake. The baker stated he does not create cakes for same sex marriages, but offered to sell them anything else or create custom goodies for a shower, birthday, or any other event. This was immediately met with expletives and rude gestures, and that was the end of their person to person interaction. That was followed by the couple presumably taking to social media the shop was bombarded with hateful calls and messages including a death threat. It might be that the baker is lying, but this isn't even a he-said, she-said. There was not even the slightest effort made at compromise.

Nerdoid 8y ago

> That is extremely inconsistent and evidence of bias and prejudice in the local enforcement of law. That is not inconsistent, as one is denying someone based on what they are, and the other is denying someone based on harassment. The gay couple didn't ask the baker to write on the cake that heterosexuality was immoral. There's an obvious difference between affirming the culture of the customer, and antagonistically denying the culture of the producer. And I do think think that the baker's refusal was about what they are, since the conditions to bake the cake required that it didn't acknowledge what they are. It's like saying, "I will bake a cake for a black person, but only if it doesn't reference black culture in any way."

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
The religious baker was being asked to engage in an action that's deeply disparaging of his beliefs and values. The gay baker was being asked to engage in an action that's deeply disparaging of his beliefs and values. This is the problem with social laws. It's easy to see things from our own perspectives, without considering that what 'we' consider perfectly reasonable can be perfectly offensive to another individual. One of the most crucial issues in forcing people to engage in behavior that they find offensive is that it goes both ways.
- daxorid 8y ago
  I believe the standard retort to this is that religion is a choice, whereas sexual orientation is not. Which is understandable as far as it goes, except it is the sole exception to the accepted blank slate belief of sociologists everywhere. We carve out a very visible exception in this domain. Zeitgeist: Our behaviors are all socialized into us, with the sole exception of sexual orientation. Contrast with the perspective that one's religion is merely a choice, such that after being socialized into a belief system for one's most formative eighteen years, one can simply toss it away thereafter.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    Absolutely, but the issue here is that religion is a protected class under the law. The key point here is that a 'creator' generally cannot be forced to use their talents to create something that they do not want to. However can people 'override' this and force people to create things they normally would not, if the thing being requested falls under the domain of a protected class? For instance 'satanists' are now requesting the same baker create cakes celebrating the birth of Lucifer with upside down crosses and associated imagery, arguing that it's an expression of their religion, implicitly with threats to sue if the baker doesn't abide.

soundwave106 8y ago

The Bible cake story is new to me, so I had to Google it. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/opinion/gay-wedding-cake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/opinion/gay-wedding-cake....) Apparently there is a small but critical nuance between the stories. Per this article, in the Bible quote incident, the owner was willing to sell the cake, and do everything except putting a quote on it -- even offering the icing to write those words if they wanted. In the gay cake incident, the owner was willing to sell the couple anything else in the store -- but the cake itself was not allowed to be bought. "Protected classes" are one of the few government mandated restrictions for the freedom of businesses to refuse service (something which I have some mixed feelings on, but given some of the climate that happened without these protections, I find them completely understandable). It's possible that the judgement will end up reading very narrowly -- for instance, if you use the above reasoning, it would be legal to discriminate on the messaging but illegal to discriminate on the product. (In other words, if the baker in the homosexual couple case didn't sell a homosexual marriage themed case, but would sell a generic cake and let the homosexual couple decorate it in any way they want, that would have been legal under this particular interpretation.) This is just an example, it's not the only way a narrow reading could go down, but there are probably more solutions out there then all one way vs. another.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
The baker has stated in front of the supreme court that he would have been more than happy to sell them an off the-shelf-cake if that was requested, as opposed to him creating a wedding cake specifically for their wedding. One of the big problems here is that the interaction went from 0 to extremely hostile instantly. The couple asked about a wedding cake. The baker stated he does not create cakes for same sex marriages, but offered to sell them anything else or create custom goodies for a shower, birthday, or any other event. This was immediately met with expletives and rude gestures, and that was the end of their person to person interaction. That was followed by the couple presumably taking to social media the shop was bombarded with hateful calls and messages including a death threat. It might be that the baker is lying, but this isn't even a he-said, she-said. There was not even the slightest effort made at compromise.