Supreme Court seems divided in case of baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Well presumably the Muslim Restaurant wouldn't have any pork products on their menu for catering. If the wedding is catering pork products from another venue, I would assume the Muslim Restaurant would have no problem with it.

 

That is like asking a Wedding Cake maker to make you a "peanut butter and jelly cake". If they don't do it, you can't make them learn how to do it. If you wanted madeleines to cover your cake, but the baker didn't have the skill you can't make them do it.

 

You can't ask the chef/baker to do something outside of their scope. A muslim restaurant doesn't offer pork dishes, so you can't make them learn how to cook pork.

I think you missed the point. I have deep divide in my heart about this case, and no matter the outcome someones rights are going to be violated. 

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I think you missed the point. I have deep divide in my heart about this case, and no matter the outcome someones rights are going to be violated. 

No I don't think you understand the distinction.

 

Asking a Muslim Restaurant to cook pork dishes for your wedding is NOT the same thing as asking a baker to bake you a cake.

 

The baker bakes cake. It's what they do. They do it for all of their customers.

 

The Muslim Restaurant never cooks pork. It isn't what they do for anyone, regardless of the religious affiliation of the person they are cooking for. It just simply isn't in their description. THey have never offered it to anyone and will never offer it.

 

The Muslim Restaurant wouldn't be "discriminating" against you because they don't cook pork for ANYONE. It would only be discrimination if they have some clientele that they cook pork for, but they refuse to do it for you specifically for some reason. The baker is discriminating against you because they bake cakes for all other people, but not for you specifically.

 

Come up with another example if you'd like, but this one very clearly doesn't work.

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

No I don't think you understand the distinction.

 

Asking a Muslim Restaurant to cook pork dishes for your wedding is NOT the same thing as asking a baker to bake you a cake.

 

The baker bakes cake. It's what they do. They do it for all of their customers.

 

The Muslim Restaurant never cooks pork. It isn't what they do for anyone, regardless of the religious affiliation of the person they are cooking for. It just simply isn't in their description. THey have never offered it to anyone and will never offer it.

 

The Muslim Restaurant wouldn't be "discriminating" against you because they don't cook pork for ANYONE. It would only be discrimination if they have some clientele that they cook pork for, but they refuse to do it for you specifically for some reason. The baker is discriminating against you because they bake cakes for all other people, but not for you specifically.

 

Come up with another example if you'd like, but this one very clearly doesn't work.

Yes it does

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Yes it does

Please explain how then.

 

As I've already clearly showed, it's not discrimination for a Muslim restaurant to not serve pork because they don't DISCRIMINATE towards specific people. They just don't serve it to anyone.

 

Perhaps you don't understand what discriminate even means...Maybe we need to take several steps back...

 

It would be like if the gay couple went into a bakery shop that don't bake wedding cakes and got angry because they refused to bake a wedding cake...That isn't discrimination. It is beyond the scope of what they offer.

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

Please explain how then.

 

As I've already clearly showed, it's not discrimination for a Muslim restaurant to not serve pork because they don't DISCRIMINATE towards specific people. They just don't serve it to anyone.

 

Perhaps you don't understand what discriminate even means...Maybe we need to take several steps back...

My argument stands

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

My argument stands

It doesn't. I've presented an explanation for why it doesn't and you haven't countered with anything.

 

Do you not even know how an argument works?

 

A Muslim restaurant refusing to cater pork would be like a baker that doesn't bake wedding cakes refusing to bake a wedding cake. They don't do it ever, so they aren't discriminating when they say no.

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I did counter with something. You just didn't agree with it.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

I did counter with something. You just didn't agree with it.

You countered with "yes it does"

 

Please explain how a muslim restaurant refusing you pork is discrimination, when they don't serve it to ANYONE.

 

It's a very simple question.

[Ban Hammer 13,550]

has there  been a description of what the gay couple wanted on the cake?

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

has there  been a description of what the gay couple wanted on the cake?

I had asked that originally. I haven't seen one.

 

Obviously if they wanted like a phallic motif or something I would have no problem with a baker refusing on the basis that likely the baker would refuse that from ANY customer (again - Not discrimination if you don't do it for anyone, only discrimination if you do it for some people but not for others). 

 

If they wanted a cake that would have been perfectly suitable in a straight wedding and one that the baker would have had no problem making for a straight wedding, I don't see how it "offends" the baker's "artistic expression" to do something he would do for any other couple except them or "their kind". The cake itself doesn't offend his religion, and that is all that matters. He isn't required to attend the wedding.

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,793]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

This is exactly what is happening now. If they rule in favour of the wedding cake maker absolutely I would argue they need to rule similarly for any other chef that puts their passion into their craft. They'll set a precedent that will be hard to argue against.

 

Wedding cake decorations are impressive...but they pale in comparison to dining experiences I've had from renowned chefs with 12+ courses. Absolutely no comparison in my mind.

 

I'd love to see some of the chefs in NYC start kicking out Republicans because they have the "right to discriminate" because it offends their art. That would be hilarious.

Don’t they already do this?

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Don’t they already do this?

Not that I'm aware of. Do you have any examples?

 

I don't believe restaurants, currently, can discriminate (except for the whole "no shirt no shoes" deal).

 

Of course if we can start discriminating for artistic express, that might change. Trump might start having to only eat in Trump Tower when in NYC. Believe me, that's not pleasant.

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,793]

46 minutes ago, bcking said:

Please explain how then.

 

As I've already clearly showed, it's not discrimination for a Muslim restaurant to not serve pork because they don't DISCRIMINATE towards specific people. They just don't serve it to anyone.

 

Perhaps you don't understand what discriminate even means...Maybe we need to take several steps back...

 

It would be like if the gay couple went into a bakery shop that don't bake wedding cakes and got angry because they refused to bake a wedding cake...That isn't discrimination. It is beyond the scope of what they offer.

What if it was a Muslim baker being asked for a same sex wedding cake?  I think this was already asked in Dearborn, MI, and they refused.  Now this was at the time that same sex weddings were not recognized in Michigan, so the MDL blew it off.  If memory serves, this baker in front of SCOTUS initially refused this couple when CO also did not recognize same sex marriages.

 

The thing I don’t understand is why would this couple even want this guy to make their cake for them?  

[Dashinka 24,793]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

Not that I'm aware of. Do you have any examples?

 

I don't believe restaurants, currently, can discriminate (except for the whole "no shirt no shoes" deal).

 

Of course if we can start discriminating for artistic express, that might change. Trump might start having to only eat in Trump Tower when in NYC. Believe me, that's not pleasant.

Don’t most businesses reserve the right to serve someone that is not a protected identity?  I don’t have any examples specifically, but last I heard political affiliation is not one of the protected identities.  However, there are many examples of resturant workers tampering with the food of police officers.

[yuna628 9,713]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

You are absolutely correct, and often times art can be very discriminatory and inflammatory in nature.  All I can say is that my sister is a cake decorator, and she considers each of her finished products as art, sure it is edible, but it is still art which can be photographed for posterity.  As to offering them a pre-made cake with no input from the artist, isn't that sort of like asking a portrait artist to paint or draw something they find repugnant, and they instead offer you a blank sheet of paper.

I'm sure she does feel it is art. We tend to put a little bit of ourselves into anything we create really. But like I said, is the cakes he had made and was prepared to offer them no less artistic? A lot of pre made cakes in bakeries are still very beautiful and have designs. I don't believe the cake he offered was devoid of design at all, it was a standard wedding cake design that certainly requires skill. What they did want though was a rainbow cake... that is when you cut the inside, it's rainbow colored... otherwise it was a very plain cake, it would have no writing or other design. So where do we draw the artistic line? I find it hypocritical of him to offer them a standard cake he had already made, using his artistry.. that's all really. By his own account he says it is the ''making of the cake'' that causes him to violate his 'faith', so how does ''already making a cake beforehand and letting them buy it'' any real difference? The ADF which helps represent the baker says that his cake would be ''the iconic centerpiece of the marriage celebration” and “announces through Phillips’s voice that a marriage has occurred and should be celebrated.” Again, can they answer how him offering a cake he has already pre-made by him to the couple is any less a centerpiece and doesn't represent something? He's not making the cake specific to the couple's request (rainbow food coloring dye) but he has without a doubt made a wedding cake.

 

Here is an example of a wedding cake similar to the one my sister had, a standard stock cake no less created with skill, and no less a wedding cake. It's something similar to what was offered likely.

 

 

I just feel that this is where his argument gets weak. If he had refused across the board... maybe. But in conjunction with his lawyers he's trying to find a narrow argument in a clever way.. when he offered them a different cake, his moral objection starts to crumble.