3 ms·

You are massively misrepresenting the case. There is a world of difference between someone refusing to design or bake a cake on the basis of the contents reque

You are massively misrepresenting the case. There is a world of difference between someone refusing to design or bake a cake on the basis of the contents requested and someone refusing to do the same on the basis of the person(s) requesting the cake. The baker refused to bake a cake because the couple was gay, not because of what was on it.

dijit 8y ago
>refused to make a cake in support of gay marriage Sounds awfully like the content of the cake was what the bakers in question objected to, now necessarily the people requesting it.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  So let's say then it was a black couple instead of a gay couple. Would it be OK for the baker to refuse service because he's against black people getting married?
  - wang_li 8y ago
    Would it be OK for a gay baker to refuse to make a cake with the inscription "Celebrating the third anniversary of the Pulse Night Club shooting" if the cake was being requested by someone whose religious teachings preach that homosexuality is a sin and those who engage in the practice should be killed? Or how about for a gay coffee shop owner to kick Christians out of his shop because he disagrees with their belief system. See Bedlam Coffee in Seattle.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      You're making an incredibly false analogy in the first scenario and misreading the case in the second. In the first case there is no discrimination on the basis of religion, skin color or sex. In the second you are being disengenous because it was clear that they were not in fact kicked out because they were christian, but kicked out because of both what they were actively doing near and in his coffee shop. If they were kicked out solely on the basis of being Christian then yes, that would be a clear problem.
      - wang_li 8y ago
        It's not false. There are religions that proscribe death for homosexual behavior. People celebrating such executions are celebrating their faith and their religion. Saying that denying them service is based on their actions and not on their religion is the same as saying that you're not refusing them service because they are gay, but because they act like gay people. There's no daylight between being something and acting like that thing. >...but kicked out because of both what they were actively doing near and in his coffee shop. They were doing nothing but be customers in his shop. They weren't leafleting or proselytizing. Kicking them out because they engaged in a protected practice outside of his shop is kicking them out because of what they are. Otherwise we could say that it's ok to deny service to people who, for example, march in a pride parade.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
The baker offered to create the couple cakes for even things like a wedding shower, or to create various goodies for them. And of course they could also buy anything that was already baked in the shop including things that could be used as their wedding cake. The one thing he would not do is create a cake specifically for a same sex marriage as he felt it was endorsement of something he felt was unethical. He also had a long list of other things he would not create products to endorse, including Halloween. This is why the case was fundamentally a freedom of speech case. The creation of a cake was seen as an expression of endorsement by the baker, and the state cannot compel individuals to endorse things they find offensive. To avoid copy pasting stuff, I wrote more details along with some background on 'speech' as well as state compulsion here [1]. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17229172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17229172
Tomte 8y ago
That's wrong. The baker offered to sell another cake to them. The difference between the cake not sold and the cake he was willing to sell was what was on it. You've fallen victim to hyper-sensationalized blogs.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  No, what I said was correct. He offered to sell them other prefab cakes, but refused specifically to bake them a cake because he viewed it as supporting gay marriage (and ergo, supporting their marriage). In this case there is little to no distinction between what was on the cake versus the people requesting it. As I mentioned in another comment, if a black couple was refused service because the baker does not recognize marriage among black people I believe it would be considered flagrant racism. And don't resort to ad hominem attacks against my arguments.
  - Tomte 8y ago
    Exactly. He was willing to sell a cake. You're erither not understanding the issue or you're willfully obtuse. Since it's such a charged issue, I'm pretty sure you're doing this out of malice.

dijit 8y ago

>refused to make a cake in support of gay marriage Sounds awfully like the content of the cake was what the bakers in question objected to, now necessarily the people requesting it.

fzeroracer 8y ago
So let's say then it was a black couple instead of a gay couple. Would it be OK for the baker to refuse service because he's against black people getting married?
- wang_li 8y ago
  Would it be OK for a gay baker to refuse to make a cake with the inscription "Celebrating the third anniversary of the Pulse Night Club shooting" if the cake was being requested by someone whose religious teachings preach that homosexuality is a sin and those who engage in the practice should be killed? Or how about for a gay coffee shop owner to kick Christians out of his shop because he disagrees with their belief system. See Bedlam Coffee in Seattle.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    You're making an incredibly false analogy in the first scenario and misreading the case in the second. In the first case there is no discrimination on the basis of religion, skin color or sex. In the second you are being disengenous because it was clear that they were not in fact kicked out because they were christian, but kicked out because of both what they were actively doing near and in his coffee shop. If they were kicked out solely on the basis of being Christian then yes, that would be a clear problem.
    - wang_li 8y ago
      It's not false. There are religions that proscribe death for homosexual behavior. People celebrating such executions are celebrating their faith and their religion. Saying that denying them service is based on their actions and not on their religion is the same as saying that you're not refusing them service because they are gay, but because they act like gay people. There's no daylight between being something and acting like that thing. >...but kicked out because of both what they were actively doing near and in his coffee shop. They were doing nothing but be customers in his shop. They weren't leafleting or proselytizing. Kicking them out because they engaged in a protected practice outside of his shop is kicking them out because of what they are. Otherwise we could say that it's ok to deny service to people who, for example, march in a pride parade.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

The baker offered to create the couple cakes for even things like a wedding shower, or to create various goodies for them. And of course they could also buy anything that was already baked in the shop including things that could be used as their wedding cake. The one thing he would not do is create a cake specifically for a same sex marriage as he felt it was endorsement of something he felt was unethical. He also had a long list of other things he would not create products to endorse, including Halloween. This is why the case was fundamentally a freedom of speech case. The creation of a cake was seen as an expression of endorsement by the baker, and the state cannot compel individuals to endorse things they find offensive. To avoid copy pasting stuff, I wrote more details along with some background on 'speech' as well as state compulsion here [1]. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17229172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17229172

Tomte 8y ago

That's wrong. The baker offered to sell another cake to them. The difference between the cake not sold and the cake he was willing to sell was what was on it. You've fallen victim to hyper-sensationalized blogs.

fzeroracer 8y ago
No, what I said was correct. He offered to sell them other prefab cakes, but refused specifically to bake them a cake because he viewed it as supporting gay marriage (and ergo, supporting their marriage). In this case there is little to no distinction between what was on the cake versus the people requesting it. As I mentioned in another comment, if a black couple was refused service because the baker does not recognize marriage among black people I believe it would be considered flagrant racism. And don't resort to ad hominem attacks against my arguments.
- Tomte 8y ago
  Exactly. He was willing to sell a cake. You're erither not understanding the issue or you're willfully obtuse. Since it's such a charged issue, I'm pretty sure you're doing this out of malice.